Fistful of Talent

Be Money Like Mikey From Swingers... Get Commitment on The Salary BEFORE the Offer...

I was reading Tolan's riff last week on the surprise BMW in the offer process, then JLee's piece in draft that ran earlier this week on her style for making an offer to candidates.

I thought for a second about changing the name of the blog to "fistful of offers" or "accept this offer or your cat gets it", but I thought that would be over the top.  So instead, I'm going to use the second post today to throw my two common cents into the discussion on offers and money.

Here's my add - anytime I think I can get away with it, I'm prequalifying the candidate like a cheap mortgage company on whether they would accept my likely offer.  Here's how it works:

-hook candidate through sourcing and email/initial phone contact that it's more money than Mikey from Swingers...

-have a great phone screen, then as a last order of business, give them a range with 5-10K in variability plus the bonus level.

-tell them that's what I can afford to pay, then let them know that if they don't feel it's probable they could accept comp in that range, we owe it to each other to move on.

-when I get to the offer, remind them of that conversation.

Boom.  I just solved your crappy close rate.  OK, I'm joking, I didn't really solve anything.  But it's an idea...

For me, it's worked pretty well.  I usually restrict the range down a little bit so if I decide or need to pop them with another 5-10K, I can do it and look like a charmer.

So, that's my big idea.  Close the money side of the deal before you make the offer. It won't save you from what Tim Tolan went through with a freaking BMW, but if you ask someone for commitment and their word, it's hard for most people to play games once the official offer rolls around.

PS - You are so money, baby... and you don't even know it... 

Maslow, Oh Maslow. Self Actualization = Offer Acceptance.

So, it's true. We've probably talked ad nauseum here on FOT about how you always need to be closing as a recruiter. Always be closing folks! And I've talked about how the length of time it takes for your candidate to accept your job offer is directly tied to how well you, as a recruiter, have done your job. It's nothing but nag, nag, nag that we seem to do. And for that, I'm a little sorry. It's just in our own distorted little minds, we think that we know what we're talking about and that we're always right. But to maybe prove our points and the merit behind our naggging, let's rewind a bit and walk through a theory to help support the idea of "always be closing" and apply Maslow's hierarchy of needs to our work as recruiters.  

Now, first off, I'm not an expert on motivation. That's our friend, Paul Hebert. But, I happen to be in the midst of studying for my SPHR exam right now, the test being right around the corner... and that requires me covering a lot of ground on a lot of different topics and knowing a bit of this, and a bit of that, including some motivation theories. So, there was Maslow with his hierarchy of needs, and McGregor with theory X and theory Y, and Herzberg with the two factor motivation/hygiene theory and more. And it all got me thinking, especially that whole Maslow hierarchy of needs, and how those theories translate to recruiters and the push to always be closing.

With Maslow and his little pyramid, the ultimate is self actualization right? It's where you've reached your full potential. Enlightenment and profound harmony are reached. Queue the heavenly music... now. To get there though, all of your basic, low-level needs have to be satisfied. The physiological, the safety, the social, esteem...  you know the drill on Maslow. And translating Maslow's pyramid into recruiting terms, I started wondering if the equivalent to self actualization is candidates accepting your job offer. Follow me? But in order to get there, maybe we can make the argument that as a recruiter, you need to meet your candidate's psychological, safety, social and esteem needs. Let's break this down:

Physiological. These are your most basic needs - what's needed for survival, literally. In recruiting terms, think about simply communicating around providing adequate compensation in order for your candidate to live and get by.

Safety: So your comp package will meet their very basic physiological needs. Great. Next up is making sure you convey that the workplace is going to provide consistency, and to a certain degree, predictability. Read: job security and a safe and comfortable work environment. You can probably throw in your offering of health and welfare benefits here too. Insurance = safety.

Social: And we're building! Social boils down to acceptance and a sense of belonging. Everyone wants to have friends. Everyone needs a sense of community. Communicate around the team structure, how new people are integrated and what in the culture makes people feel like they belong.

Esteem: People want to be respected which translates to self-esteem and self-respect. So how do you recognize top performers? And what programs are in place to manage performance? What can your candidate expect if they do a good job?

Self Actualization: Now, remember, to get here, you've gotta meet the physiological, safety, social and esteem needs of your candidate first. Once you've done that - seal the deal and make sure you covered how the work is going to be challenging, and how your organization continually works towards developing staff. Put the cherry on top and get that candidate to accept.

And with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, here you essentially have a checklist of everything to cover with candidates as you're working with them through the selection process. But you need not work through this all at the end as you're actually making the offer - always be closing by making sure you communicate around your organization's offerings that meet their physiological, safety, social, esteem and self actualization needs throughout selection process. Build upon each level and when you pick up the phone to make the actual offer? Make sure you've done the leg work to get them to self actualization... and then, DING! Self actualization = offer accepted. Always be closing, folks. Always be closing. Even Maslow would agree with us on this one.

How You Quit Your Job - Things That Make Me Go Hmmm...

I love the dance that begins once someone has accepted your offer and you're now talking about a start date in the new role.  Especially if they're employed.  Here's the usual intervals and what they mean to me.  I'm sure you've got some adjustments to these definitions:

For Those Currently Working:

-No Notice Needed, I can start in under a week - Your employer's either walking you out because that's their policy for a position like yours, or your position in the company is so damaged that walking out without notice won't harm your reputation further. (old school note - back in the dot.com days, it could have meant an option grant at your new company was being issued that week....) 

-One Week - Your employer doesn't have a "walk them out" policy, but everyone thinks it better if you wrap things up and get out at the end of the week.  No reason for you to hang around and tell everyone about your new gig.

-Two Weeks - Because that's what everyone has been told by Ms. Manners that it needs to be.  Both your candidate and the current employer.  Usually a good thing from your perspective for the candidate, because they are picking honor over expediency.

-Three Weeks - For a professional involved in a lot of stuff, it's almost impossible to wrap in two weeks.  That's why three weeks is the new two weeks for professional positions with a lot of responsibility.  This means your candidate is doing the right thing by their current employer.  Your hiring managers won't like it (ASAP please), but they'll respect it.

-Four Weeks - This means your candidate is pretty attached to their employer, and it's 50/50 whether they'll show up on the report date.  Touch base early and often, because the probability is abnormally high they're not coming.

For Those Currently Not Working:

-Report Immediately - They're ready to work.  The expected response.

-One Week - They're catching up on past seasons of "Lost" via DVD sets.

-Two Weeks - They really aren't ready to go back to work, but know they need to.  To delay it as much as possible, they ask for the norm...

-Three Weeks - They're going to cram in a trip before they change their lifestyle of sleeping until 10am.

-Four Weeks - Hey Nostradamus, they're still actively interviewing, hoping they can land a better gig before they have to report... Nice...

3 weeks is the new 2 weeks for those currently employed.  Like C&C Music Factory, anything else makes me go hmmmmmm.

Wax On/Wax Off - The Corporate Recruiter Rant Against Bad Cold Callers...

Letters, we get letters...

It stands to reason that with the economy struggling, cold calling among third party recruiters has picked up a bit.  And within that universe of cold calls, it also stands to reason that bad, "we can handle any recruiting need you have", spam-like cold calls are up as well.  It's really the aspect of the third party business that tends to push HR pros and Corporate Recruiters to dislike fielding any inquiry, which is too bad. The good third-party recruiters (TPRs) tend to get lumped in with the spammers, just like the good HR pros get lumped in with the "I'm good at administration and don't want to do anything else" HR lumps.

Still, that doesn't mean that corporate recruiters aren't getting sick of the bad, cold calls, which definitely go up in a bad economy.  I received the following email from a FOT reader who serves as a corporate recruiter, and he's mad as hell and doesn't want to take it anymore.  Take a read:

"From a Corporate Recruiter to ALL Agency Recruiters

I received a call today. It was from Janet at Staffing Sensations. She went to my company’s web site and found our employment listings and noticed we had several openings that she thought her firm would be able to help out with. I was so excited that she called. I don’t think she realized that we have a master list of over 220 firms and actual signed agreements with over 75 of those firms. Mind you that we have only been tracking these calls for less then 8 months. But this call was different. Staffing Sensations was different. They are the kind of company that can handle all of our needs. It doesn’t matter where the position is located or what the title is. They can fill it! I knew that this call was different. I knew that this was the call I had been waiting for. My prayers had been answered. Finally, ONE company that can fill all of our openings, no matter what or where it may be. The problem is that Janet was the third call today and it’s only 10:00 AM. I had had enough. I know that Janet did no wrong. She was just doing her job and cold calling like a madwoman.

I guess there are several issues that I want to point out. First of all, we have a great disclaimer on our employment page about how to click HERE if you are interested in becoming a vendor. Way too many companies ignore our very tasteful and well crafted disclaimer and contact our hiring managers directly or send unsolicited resumes instead of an inquiry email. That is what I call getting off on the wrong foot. Secondly we are a company that has offices in 23 different states. Why would we want one company to try and fill all our positions on a national basis? I see a lot more value in localized, niche recruiters finding us local niche candidates. I don’t think anyone in Knoxville, TN has any business recruiting for accountants in Seattle, WA. Have they ever been to Seattle? Do they know if it really rains there 330 days a year? I’m sure the local recruiters in Seattle know their market rates, candidates, business cycles, etc, better than anyone from Tennessee.

If we need outside recruiting assistance, we will go out and find the best firm to fit our needs. We look at niche. We look at geography. We look at fee.

Back to Janet. I graciously listened to how awesome your recruiters are and how your process is ISO 10,002. I let you know that I will add you to the mammoth list of potential vendors. I even agree to your follow up emails and occasional, "How ya doin?" telephone calls. The reality is that I will add your name to the list, but that is probably as far as we will get. I just spent 4 minutes talking to you and another 2 minutes updating my list.

From this corporate recruiter, I am asking that you back off and let us breathe a little. I know that without your calls and emails we would never know that you exist, but there is a fine line between cold calling and full on stalking. Why can’t corporate America try to fill the positions by just posting on our web site and see what happens (I know "post and pray"). Look, in this economy, the last thing we need is help filling the handful of positions we have. We need to justify our existence not someone else’s!

Your Corporate Recruiter

Sigh.  He's right, and if TPRs pitch in and defend themselves, it's not THEM he's talking about.  It's the ones who get paid a 24K base and have to cold call to try to build a book and a reputation.  Seriously, any TPR who reads talent blogs is likely not part of the stereotype.  Like the sales process of every other business, you have to accept the spam and recognize the value the good TPRs bring to the table.

Of course, that doesn't stop the calls...

What's Your Pay? Money Should be the Last Thing On Your Mind When I Make You An Offer....

Ann Bares' post a while back over at Compensation Force on pay communication got me thinking… what’s my approach when communicating pay during the job offer?

I’m not sure anyone actually ever coached or taught me “how” to make a job offer. I’ve taken my own experiences of being offered jobs, coupled with what just makes sheer sense to me, and have come up with this approach: talk about the role, discuss why everyone is excited and how this is going to be a great career move… and then comes the discussion on money. I always save that for last. If I know I can close the deal easily, I’ll dive right in and give the figure, launch into a schpiel on our bonus program, and then hit them with benefits. I drive hard, put the pedal to the metal and quickly close the deal. That usually works well for me.

For candidates where salary might be a tougher negotiation, I usually start out with a little bitty on our ranges and how we generally determine compensation. For others, I’ll include a discussion of what the industry standard is and how our offer compares. I think a few times, I have even come flat out and said that we’re not going to be able to meet what they were expecting and then launch into where I can take them, what the earning potential might be long term and why their expectations might not be in alignment with our compensation structure. Essentially, I talk ranges, goals, rationale, and our intent.

I’ll also go for an emotional connection a la Paul Herbert in hard-to-close deals where I’ll emphasize motivation, the impact they can have (yes, you can help to change the world!) and that coming to work for my firm can’t be about the money – they have to want this role and I heavily emphasize the intangible benefits. And thankfully, I’ve actually never had a job turned down because of money, including when I’ve asked people to take pay cuts… but that’s not to say that I’m 100% confident when making offers. I actually hate talking about money and dread that part of the discussion.

I suspect some of the issues in the study Ann sites where most/many/all employees don’t know or understand the salary ranges for their positions and how base pay increases were determined could have linkages to how and what is communicated when first bringing an individual into an organization. My firm also does a compensation orientation session for new staff so they understand our pay philosophy and compensation structure. Another best practice, if I’m to toot the horn for my wonderful HR team and leadership. What are other folks doing though? Are there other best practices to share out there? I’m eager to hear what you’ve got up your sleeves.

Editor's Note - Jessica Lee is an Employment Manager for APCO Worldwide, a global PR firm in D.C. Like most upscale HR pros, she spends half of her time on recruiting, the other half on ER, Training and OD.  When she's not hammering a candidate to determine Motivational Fit, she's thinking about the future of HR, and wondering how many HR Managers nationally could pull off appearing in a Justin Timberlake video...Just like other upscale HR Pros I know and respect...

Give Me Access to the Hiring Manager - You Power Hungry Wannabe!

In any search assignment, you have to deliver candidates who can absolutely get the job done. No need to candy-coat that expectation - right? Here's the problem. In order to truly understand the search assignment, expectations of the job, culture and a number of other critical pieces of information - the search professional needs to have access to the hiring manager. In addition, he or she needs to be able to have an ongoing dialog with that person during the course of the search assignment. It's critical! Seems fair enough to me;-)

There are some people that for some reason treat external (and who knows - maybe internal) recruiters in a very unprofessional manner. I get the whole food chain discussion and know where I fit in that chain by certain people. The common goal we should all share is to get the best possible candidate in the least amount of time. What is the purpose in not having access to the decision maker? In some cases the search firm (or consultant) is hired by the CEO, the top HR executive or another executive who feels that firm has the specific industry expertise to accomplish the task of finding and placing the talent they need. Then a hand-off is done to a wannabe. Oh boy. This is always painful.

Why can't we (all parties involved) just work together?  

Why should we have to deal with those who appear to do whatever it takes to completely derail a search assignment? I think it has more to do with some people (non-executives) finally being asked by an executive of the company to (do something important) be a liaison with the outside search firm. Liaison, I can deal with, as long as the person doesn't take that responsibility and abuse their role causing the entire search process to slow down. This can cause candidates to sit in waiting and a whole host of other things that can go wrong while a qualified candidate is waiting to interview with the hiring manager. The wannabe (who thinks they are a search professional) feels the need to vet each candidate (many times with NO skills to do so). This delays scheduling interviews, continually blocks the search consultant from the decision maker and literally redesigns the search strategy just to feel "important". Give me a break!  I'm sorry. That simply does not and will not work for most search professionals. With no access to the real decision maker - you are doomed to fail. I also think the wannabe (with apparent low self-esteem) believes they are the critical link to ensure a successful outcome to a search. Are you kidding me? In most cases, they actually wind up waisting everyone's time and truly do their company a real disservice. Did I mention they also give me a real headache? (Didn't think so)    

So...I made a business decision a long time ago that I will not take a search assignment unless I have access to the person ultimately making the decision. This is NOT a power thing with me. It's NOT an issue I have in working with my HR partners either. Not at all. I work regularly and have worked with some of the finest HR professionals who have added a ton of value to our search process.

I'm just not working with any wannabe's. Please...I can't take it! By now - I can usually spot a wannabe a mile away. And... I always run - and fast! So, move out of my way, wannabe, and let's get on with the search!           

OK - I've made my point:-)

Editor's Note - Tim Tolan is a partner at Sanford Rose Associates and specializes in Executive Search in Healthcare IT.  He's a closer, and you really don't want to call him unless you're ready to bring out the bazooka to bag some big game...                                         

Liar, Coward, Politician: The Office Politics Game With No Right Answer...

Hi, and welcome to my presentation! I'm at your company, I'm at the head of an auditorium, and you are one of about 300 people in attendance to hear what I have to say. (We're pretending here. Play along, please.) Out of nowhere, I put up a slide that has one word on it. A controversial word, too. The word is:

SEX

I pause a moment, then ask the audience: "Take a look around you. How many of you believe that I made someone here uncomfortable by putting up this slide?"

Nearly every hand goes up.

Then I ask, "How many of you believe that I made many people uncomfortable, possibly even a majority of the folks in here?" Some hands come down, but many stay raised.

Until I ask my third question, "OK, now tell the truth. Raise your hand if this word made you yourself uncomfortable. C'mon, let's see who you are." The way I frame the question, and the tone of voice I use, ensures that nearly every hand goes down. "So everyone's OK if I continue?" I move on quickly, before a single hand goes back up.

I continue. "Now, I just got your permission to talk about this subject," I say, pointing at the screen, "But you and I both know that I didn't, really. If I continue, I'm going to get in heaps of trouble. One of you is going to report later that you thought I used inappropriate material, and I'm going to get a call from the person who organized this presentation asking me to explain myself.

"And then I'm going to say, 'What are you talking about, I got their permission!' And the organizer is going to tell me I'm smarter than that, and then we'll end up no place good."

End scene.

So what happened? Did you lie to me when I asked if you were uncomfortable? Technically, yes, some of you did, but I can't call you liars, because I manipulated you into it.

Were you cowardly? Here again, technically, letting me get myself into trouble and then tattling on me later *is* cowardly. But here again also, it's not that simple.

By framing the situation in a specific way and using peer pressure to my advantage, I boxed you into a series of positions.

Guess what? That's how politics works. Really good politicians feed you forced choices that don't allow you to stand for your own position—they force you to defend or refute *their* positions, and they do it in a way that makes you look like a liar or a coward if you try to do the right thing. The process leaves you feeling slightly woozy—a little "What's going on here?"—because you want to focus on the issue but the frame—the foundation—keeps moving under your feet.

In the example above, the *real* question I was asking during the presentation was, "Do you mind if I talk about sex in this business setting." Asking it would have gotten me a "Yes, I mind" so I politicked you into "No."

So, this is evil, right?

Nope. It's genius.

The same ability that underpins office politics provides the genius behind our greatest stories, greatest inventions, greatest sales people, and greatest leaders.

It's the ability to shift people's perspectives and put new pictures in their heads.

When you see politics as evil, you resist trying to "own the frame." As a result, you get pushed around by others, which reinforces your idea that politics is evil. But if you were to get yourself to start fighting for control of the frame, you would discover you have a lot more power than you realize.

I talk a lot about this issue in How to Self-Destruct: Making the Least of What's Left of Your Career. Most people shy away from politics right when they should be fighting hardest for control.

Here's an example of how to control the frame in that auditorium: 

Raise your hand.  Stand up. Say, "I'm not uncomfortable with the word, but I *am* uncomfortable with how you're presenting it. I feel I'm being led astray by you. Help me out with that before we potentially dive into such a hot-button issue, OK?"

Editor's Note: Jason Seiden is a management and communications consultant (http://jasonseiden.com/) who helps organizations hire, manage, and develop top talent. He boosts clients' results by targeting teams' interpersonal dynamics and by motivating individuals (at all levels) to take greater personal responsibility for the success of the whole.  And yes, he manipulated me into writing that about him.  Damn.  I'm changing it next time to sound like a human wrote it, unless he gets in my head about that too...

Please Buy My Executive Candidate's Home So He Can Relocate...

My firm is currently working on a very high profile 'C-level" search for a client, that we started just before the holidays. The candidate pool was huge and many executives were throwing their names in the hat for consideration. This is a great job, great city and a super opportunity for the right person. There were lots of great candidates - many that could "nail" this new job!  But..as we always try to do, we were seeking the absolute BEST candidate that met all of the requirements and was the best cultural fit for the client. 

The interview process started, quickly progressed, and before the New Year we had quickly narrowed the    field of qualified candidates to 8. Then - on to the written questionnaire, personality testing and the video interviewing. Down the stretch and the field of 8 quickly became a final slate of 4. All candidates in the "hunt" for this job had a similar challenge if they were offered the job. It's the newest "kink in the hose" in the search business, that will be with us for the foreseeable future (Did I say years? Didn't think so). More on that later.

On to the to the face-to-face interviews - and it was unanimous. The candidate of choice was chosen by a knock-out decision by each member of the search committee. A true no-brainer. I knew it - and predicted the outcome in advance. The feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Even my star candidate knew it - an offer was imminent. While he was in town, he decided to take a late flight home to meet with a local realtor to check out the area. The excitement in his voice was evident to me. Once an offer came down from the client, it would be a fast and furious race to get moved and situated in his new job and new town. After all, change, as Martha Stewart says, "is a good thing". My candidate spent the next morning looking at real estate and evaluating schools and got a real taste of the new community he and his family would soon call home. Check. That all went well. It was a buyer's market in the new city, and the deals were unreal!

Now, time to meet with the realtor in his current city to get the facts on the timing, details and projections for the sale of his current residence. That's where the wheels came off on this deal. And... it was not what he wanted to hear - or what I wanted to hear - or what my client wanted to hear. My candidate would take a 25% - 30% bubble bath on the sale of their existing home. Case closed. Search over (at least for this STAR candidate).

Candidacy withdrawn - Period. All within 48 hours of meeting with the realtor. Yep - Game over. 

Even though we test each candidate (including this person) for signs of any hesitation regarding relocation - when a candidate realizes they are 25% - 30% up-side-down on their real estate, it becomes a sobering event that economically no one can ignore. He was heart broken, I was sick (literally), and my client was incredibly disappointed. Without exploring other options and alternatives and taking (in some cases) huge financial risks, I'm afraid this story will be replayed over and over for the next few years. You may or may not have the option of renting your home until the market turns around - but that in itself has risks. The relocation challenges of moving that involve selling existing real estate are real, and there is very little we, as search consultants, can do about it. We work with real estate relocation experts who uncover all of the facts and challenges each candidate on the issue. We want to make sure they have thought through the entire process. But until we see a recovery in housing in the US, candidates may have to be willing to take a huge financial hit to pull the trigger and make the move. It's tough.  

Maybe, from now on, we will add additional language to each position profile, that involves a relocation, that sounds something like this..."The ideal candidate has extensive experience as a "home or apartment renter" and can prove they currently own NO real property".

That should shrink the candidate pool. Yep...That should do it...  

Editor's Note - Tim Tolan is a partner at Sanford Rose Associates and specializes in Executive Search in Healthcare IT.  He's a closer, and you really don't want to call him unless you're ready to bring out the bazooka to bag some big game...                                         

The Passive Candidate Flips You Off In the First Five Seconds - What Do You Do?

Let's say you're cold calling passive candidates, and you ultimately run into the dark side - the candidate who has no time for you and interrupts your initial stage banter with the following:

"What's the job, company and pay?  Just tell me that because I don't have time to talk to you..."

If you recruit for a living, you know that's a pretty tame version, because I can't accurately depict the LOATHING that some folks who pick up the phone (the potential candidate) will have for you (the unwashed heathen, otherwise known as the cold calling recruiter).

So, how do you handle it when you're 7 seconds into your opening, and the candidate interrupts you and says "dude, tell me the pay and I'll tell you if you can afford me..."?  After all, you've worked hard to make your stage banter early in the call sound like a cross between Kid Rock and Tony Robbins.  How could they NOT want to talk to you?

Lou Adler sees it this way over at ERE:

"What’s the compensation?" When someone asks, don’t tell! Say, “Before I tell you that, I’d like you to think about the best jobs you’ve ever held, those that gave you the most personal satisfaction. Were the reasons they were the best due to the amount of money you were making or due to the work you were doing?” (PAUSE and wait for an answer.) “Now, if the job I’m representing offered you a chance to maximize your personal satisfaction plus offered a competitive compensation, wouldn’t it make sense to at least discuss it for 5-10 minutes?” ...

"First, tell me about the job." You must never tell the person about the job, even the actual title, until you have conducted a quick work history review. Start the conversation by asking your prospect if she’d be open to discuss an opportunity if it were clearly superior to what she’s doing now. Most people will say yes, then immediately say “Great. Could you please give me a quick overview of your background, and I’ll then give you a quick overview of the job.”

As you might expect, many readers think that sounds like a sleazy telemarketing pitch.  Ask a Manager reacts to that like a lot of candidates would:

"I don't know about you, but if a recruiter called me out of the blue and subjected me to this sort of game-playing, I'd be off the phone in seconds. I'm happy to talk to recruiters who respect my time and don't try to manipulate their way past "no," but make me feel like you're an aggressive salesman and we're done. And to demand that I recite my job history for you, when you called me? That just tells me you didn't do your homework."

Me?  I think Lou's got the right idea, but I think each recruiter has to live within the construct of who they are.  Be genuine, and the candidate will sense that and be more open.  If you've got the moxie and stage banter to pull off Lou's advice, maybe you've got the ability to be successful with that approach over 100 calls.  You just have to accept that a lot of people are going to think you're a telemarketer.  If you close 2X the business of the other recruiters, you've won at the end of the day.

That being said, Lou's advice in this scenario can't be a one size fits all.  My style would be to give them the information they want, then follow closely with a reason that I thought they would be a good fit, based on the resume I had in my hand, then try to get them talking about what they might be looking for so I can figure out their pain points.  If your style can't handle the Adler machismo, you've got to blend your personality with the hooks that Lou is providing to maximize yourself over 100 calls.

The last thing I'll say?  When you are cold calling, sometimes you have to get jacked up and take on an alter ego that is not your own, to get through the candidate cynicism and rejection.  I'm reminded of the following scene from Boiler Room (email subscribers, click through for the video - WARNING - language alert).  I'm thinking this is a young Lou Adler eating a bowl of cereal when he gets a telemarketing call.

Sometimes you have to stand up to get in character.  Be genuine, but don't be afraid to push and sell it, my FOT brothers and sisters....

How Much Cash Does it Take to Steal A Passive Candidate?

I riffed earlier this year at The HR Capitalist about the self-reported compensation needs of candidates to accept your offer and leave their current company.  Here's a taste:

"More than one-third of workers would move for a 16 to 30 percent raise, according to a Salary.com survey. Another third would walk for 8 to 15 percent more in the pay envelope. And one in six said it would take a raise of 31 to 50 percent.

I think those numbers ring pretty true.  Here's how I get my head around it:

1.  The chronically unhappy or those in danger of losing their job will leave for a lateral pay move or a very small bump.  This number is broken out in the above numbers, but based on the other figures, this is about 20% of the average workforce.

2.  Those who are at least somewhat content but open to hearing the message from recruiters?  The bidding starts with the equivalent of a promotional pay bump, which is the 8 to 15% group.  That's a third of those surveyed...

3.  Those who are happy and content?  They're still willing to listen, but like the Godfather, you'll have to make them an offer they can't refuse - a 16 to 30% bump in pay   (33%) or maybe more than a 30% increase (16% of those surveyed).  So, that equals 50% of the workforce.

So, those are the self-reported numbers, and I'm always a little leery of using data from Salary.com.  Still, assuming these numbers are directionally correct, how do the salary offer needs differ for the passive candidate?

After all, we all claim to want the passive candidate, but are we prepared to pay more?

Of course, we all would pay more.  But, I don't think we would have to, in most cases.

Think about the passive candidate.  You dig them out, then engage with a phone call.  The first decision tree for them is whether they pick up the phone or call you back.  The next decision tree is whether they say they are interested or not.  If so, the dance begins, and my take is that they are still going to fit scenario #1, #2 or #3 above.

And, that's where the skills of Tolan, McClure or Lee come in, to figure out which box they are in, the probability to close, and get the deal done.

If the right recruiter skill is involved, they qualify the candidate as being scenario #1 or #2, and move them in the process.  If it's scenario #3, they make them part of their network and move on to the next candidate.

Good Recruiter = Manageable Passive Candidate Comp Needs. 

It's called pre-qualifying mixed with selling, and all the great ones do it well.

I riffed earlier this year at The HR Capitalist about the self-reported compensation needs of candidates to accept your offer and leave their current company.  Here's a taste:

"More than one-third of workers would move for a 16 to 30 percent raise, according to a Salary.com survey. Another third would walk for 8 to 15 percent more in the pay envelope. And one in six said it would take a raise of 31 to 50 percent.

I think those numbers ring pretty true.  Here's how I get my head around it:

1.  The chronically unhappy or those in danger of losing their job will leave for a lateral pay move or a very small bump.  This number is broken out in the above numbers, but based on the other figures, this is about 20% of the average workforce.

2.  Those who are at least somewhat content but open to hearing the message from recruiters?  The bidding starts with the equivalent of a promotional pay bump, which is the 8 to 15% group.  That's a third of those surveyed...

3.  Those who are happy and content?  They're still willing to listen, but like the Godfather, you'll have to make them an offer they can't refuse - a 16 to 30% bump in pay   (33%) or maybe more than a 30% increase (16% of those surveyed).  So, that equals 50% of the workforce.

So, those are the self-reported numbers, and I'm always a little leery of using data from Salary.com.  Still, assuming these numbers are directionally correct, how do the salary offer needs differ for the passive candidate?

After all, we all claim to want the passive candidate, but are we prepared to pay more?

Of course, we all would pay more.  But, I don't think we would have to, in most cases.

Think about the passive candidate.  You dig them out, then engage with a phone call.  The first decision tree for them is whether they pick up the phone or call you back.  The next decision tree is whether they say they are interested or not.  If so, the dance begins, and my take is that they are still going to fit scenario #1, #2 or #3 above.

And, that's where the skills of Tolan, McClure or Lee come in, to figure out which box they are in, the probability to close, and get the deal done.

If the right recruiter skill is involved, they qualify the candidate as being scenario #1 or #2, and move them in the process.  If it's scenario #3, they make them part of their network and move on to the next candidate.

Good Recruiter = Manageable Passive Candidate Comp Needs. 

It's called pre-qualifying mixed with selling, and all the great ones do it well.