• Important Info:

  • Pages

  • Archives

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Follow The Armchair HR Manager – Advice from an "HR Fan" on WordPress.com
  • Recent Posts

One in hand vs. Two in the Bush

I am sure we are all familiar with the old story/proverb of the value of having one of something vs. the potential of having two or more of the same “something.” In many countries this is known as A bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush.  Essentially, the lesson learned is that having something in your grasp or in fact, something that is “yours” is far more valuable than the potential of having more things but with the risk of having to give up what you already have.

bird-in-handI have found this proverb to be very applicable to modern day recruiting and dealing with hiring managers. You see, at the end of the day, hiring managers are always looking at the value of two in the bush. Meaning, while they may have a candidate presented to them by you as the recruiter that meets a significant portion of the job requirements, many of them are always keeping an eye out for that other potential candidate that meets all of the requirements, requires no training, is a superstar, comes from an identical industry and doesn’t mind working 40 hours of overtime a week with no extra compensation. I am being a bit facetious here, but you get the point.

This is a constant struggle for recruiters – managing hiring managers – and the acceptance of a highly qualified candidate is probably at the top of the list. I know we have all felt the frustration of a hiring manager’s indecision. You source, recruit and present a great slate of candidates. The hiring manager interviews and is impressed, especially with one in particular and indicates to you that they would be a great hire, but…they want to wait “to see what else is out there.” WTH? It is at that point in time the recruiter snaps and wants to put the hiring manager in the rear naked choke hold .

How can recruiters avoid this scenario from happening? Well, the tough answer is that generally speaking, you can’t. Hiring managers often suffer from decision-making paralysis. They have been brought up thinking that there is a “right” hiring decision to be made and all other decisions are wrong. They have been led to believe there is a perfect candidate out there and they want to wait (for you) to find that candidate, because, well you know, they EXIST (yeah right).

How can you minimize this from happening? Well, this is the good news. You can control this a bit.   A lot of this occurs at the intake meeting. Make sure you get a hiring commitment up front from the hiring manager – this works best when it is in writing (can be as simple as an email). You want the hiring manager’s commitment/agreement on:

  1. Providing you with an accurate performance profile: what a person in the job needs to be able to do (this is different form a job description). The reason this is key is because if a hiring manager gives you a job description, it will simply be a laundry list of wishes of things they want in the perfect candidate. Don’t fall for this trap.
  2. Their availability – get a commitment up front as to when they will be interviewing for the role, because well, you WILL find them good candidates. If possible, schedule some dates in advance. This way, you can progress with your screening and your hiring manager has to review potential candidates efficiently as they already have interview times set up.
  3. Agree in writing as to what constitutes a good candidate vs. a great one and get commitment on hiring any “great” candidates. This should be done before the interview and scored immediately after the interview. That way, if a hiring manager agrees that a score of 4+ overall is a “great” score, anyone that scores a 4+ will be made an offer.

Point number 3 is a key one because you are getting the buy in before you meet candidates. This will help you avoid the scenario where you have a candidate interview, they get scored a 4.5, and the manager (despite loving the candidate) still defers and wants to see more candidates. You then need to ask the manager: “So, Bob, you agreed going into the interview process that anyone that scored a 4+ would be considered a GREAT candidate based on the performance profile. Therefore, we were looking for 4+’s during the selection process. We have found you a 4.5 – which is better than the 4+ considered to be great…why would we not be hiring this person? Has the selection criteria changed? Is a 4+ not great? Have the expectations/standards changed? What have we missed here?” It is at this point in time you have to remind them of one in hand vs. two in the bush. “Bob, we can certainly continue to source for you. It may take us another 2-6 weeks to present more candidates that may or may not be as good as this one. In the interim, it is highly likely you will lose the candidate you scored a 4.5. Are you willing to take that risk? This means your job will have been open for over 2.5 months? If you are willing to take the risk, we are willing to continue to source for you.”

Above all, you need to get the manager to understand that THEY were the ones who identified what they were looking for and what GREAT looked like. They have found GREAT and now GREAT is no longer GREAT. What has changed? At the end of the day, the pre-commitment approach will work with many managers. There are still others (who shouldn’t be managing or hiring) that will want to look at other candidates regardless. My advice, if you are an agency recruiter – work closest to the money. If you are in-house, you will need to focus on other clients reqs. if you have them. If you don’t, you still have to suck up the hit to your time to fill metric and soldier on…or move into HR. As always, I welcome your feedback and comments.

Photo courtesy of Pezibear/Pixabay.com

I Want Them Now!

One of the biggest challenges that recruiters face is dealing with managers with unrealistic hiring expectations. Typically it has to deal with things like the hiring manager’s expectations that recruiting will find the “perfect” candidate, but more often than not the biggest challenge centres on how quickly the manager expects to have a candidate hired by you as the recruiter.

Temper TantrumThe irony of all this is that if you ask recruiters what their top challenges are with hiring managers, they will often cite manager (lack of) decision-making in their top three. Quite the dichotomy isn’t it? I have typically seen the first scenario as being more prevalent. That is, due to some combination of poor workforce planning, poor communication, lack of departmental integration, lack of foresight and vision, reactive management style or just overall poor planning, the common scenario we see is that of a hiring manager running to recruiting with a requisition demanding that they hire them four network security specialists “this week.” (You can insert whatever hard to find, specialized skillset you are required to hire for here!)

Sadly, I see and hear these horror stories all the time where managers think/demand that a qualified skilled professional position can be sourced and hired within a week. My advice to others, and my typical response to “requests” like these, is to take a deep breath and fight the urge to respond with why that is a completely insane request and can’t be done. I then fall back on the three legged stool of business which is: Of Fast, Cheap, & Good…you can have two of these things. So that is how I tackle things with a hiring manager who wants someone sourced and hired in a week. In other words, when I hear a request like, “I want them now,” I pull out the old three legged stool.

GoodFastCheap_Pick2In the cast of the example for this blog post, obviously the manager has already picked “Fast” – so if they want someone good, it isn’t going to be cheap. In other words, we will have to throw copious amounts of money at a candidate to get someone committed in that short a time period (perhaps a specialized subcontractor.) We will also need to spend a lot of additional resources to source, pre-screen, interview, test, reference check, etc. within a week. Staying with this theme of already having selected “Fast”, if they also want to minimize costs, (and won’t/can’t commit to the resources required to do this) then quite frankly, you just aren’t going to be able to provide them someone good.

Here is the thing, whether you are in recruiting and/or HR, the worst thing you can tell your business partners, from a credibility perspective, is “no” or why you “can’t” do something. It takes discipline to respond and think differently and respond with the mindset that you can do something and provide options. Likewise, there is no rule that says you have to respond with a “yes” and blindly try to meet the manager’s request – you aren’t in the military!

Provide your manager’s with options and leverage the three legged stool – it can be a very eye opening experience when they truly see what needs to “give” in order for them to “get” what they want. It has been my experience that most rational managers will understand that they can’t, in fact, have it all – that is, a fantastic candidate, hired quickly and at a cheap salary and/or without spending additional monies on the resources required to execute. Clearly spell out what it will take to meet the hiring manager’s demands and then ask them how they would like you to proceed with the campaign.

Here is the other important element to consider – you will also need to clearly identify with the manager what you need from them to make this “Fast” hire happen. That is, they will need to block out most of their own calendar that week for interviews and commit to making a hiring decision as soon as the interviews are done and a candidate is found (from the current pool). More often than not, the “Fast” element will change for you and perhaps you can, in fact, take some more time to hire someone and the request to have someone now will move out a bit.

Better yet, with some basic analytics and reporting, you can show the hiring manager the turnover rate and cost to replace staff that have been hired on short timelines/quick recruiting campaigns – I can pretty much bet the success rate of these campaigns is pretty low. Once the manager sees that they will be going through this same exercise again, or hiring staff, in a month due to the likelihood of attrition, they may change their thinking. Over time, the more you revert to this approach, the better and more reasonable expectations hiring managers will have of you as a recruiter. As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Photo courtesy of David Castillo Dominici/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I, Robot (Recruiting Edition)

Let’s face it, many of us as Talent Acquisition Pros, (Recruiters) fall in love with shiny new things. Whether it is the latest and greatest ATS, (Applicant Tracking System) the newest “free” feature on LinkedIn, or the latest social media tool, we LOVE shiny new things. So much so, that I find it can cause us, as a profession, to focus too much on our processes, systems and technology (i.e. ways to do things FASTER), to the point that we completely fall in love with them and ignore the basics. We want to automate everything and have our ATS do all the upfront work for us. We continue to feed the technology monster, believing that it is helping us do our jobs better, when in fact it may be having the opposite effect.

Movie_poster_i_robotYou see, as recruiters, we can’t let our environment take over. That is, the technology that we have at our disposal should complement what we do, not BE what we do. We need to make sure that the technology works us and that we don’t work for the technology. Case in point, how many people reading this post absolutely love their ATS? I mean really LOVE it. Hands up. That’s what I thought. How many of you would rather have no ATS than the one you have? Right, so we need to make sure our ATS works for us. None of them are perfect but most are workable – read this great post by Tim Sackett for more on ATS love.

For example, I recently blogged about the hidden nuggets of recruiting that we fail to capitalize on, such as referrals. But here is the thing, how many of us have taken the time to make sure that our ATS actually screens in the right candidates vs. screens them out?   How many of our ATS’s create roadblock or hard stop screen out questions that push candidates out of our system vs. drawing them in?

Here is an example to drive home my point and to show why we need to do a better job of making our tools work for us. Let’s say you have an opening for a Sales Director. Your HR team, in partnership with the hiring manager, has developed a comprehensive job description/performance profile for the role. It is determined that while a university degree would be nice to have, it is not a requirement for this role. The successful candidate needs to be able to demonstrate their proposal writing and presentation abilities by drawing upon their current experience.

This job description/profile is then given to the recruiting team to use in order to make an effective hire. The information is entered into the ATS and the recruiter who has this requisition then begins to communicate the opening internally, looking for referrals, as well as advertising and recruiting externally. Because this recruiter does a good job networking internally, she actually receives several referrals for the role. The candidates are immediately directed to “apply on online” by completing an online application. Of course, no one bothered to check the standard pre-screening questions that the ATS will ask.

Here is the problem, because this company has traditionally required people to have a university degree for all its roles (began as a start up), ALL positions ask the applicant if they have a degree or not. So, what happens? The excited referrals then are either automatically screened out and/or there is no opportunity for them to describe or demonstrate their equivalent or related experience. (Thanks to one of my readers, Christine N. for this great example which I am sure is purely fictitious!).

So, what should we as recruiters be doing? We need to analyze our processes, procedures and technology and make sure they are working for us. Applying some Lean thinking principles here would go a long way to potentially reducing costs and wasted time. Secondly, and probably most importantly, we need to stop working like robots and simply “processing” everything. I have advocated time and time again that the recruiting business is a people business (seems obvious but it isn’t based on the hundreds of horror stories I hear every year.)

As recruiters, we need to find ways to humanize the candidate experience and how we interact with our candidates. In the example above, instead of automatically directing referrals to “apply online,” why isn’t the recruiter making it a point to have a personal discussion with each referral first and THEN have them apply online (as a formality at that point). Candidate referrals should not be handled the same as all other applicants; however, this is another case where we fall into the trap of acting like robots due to the technology at our disposal.

We need to make sure our technology and tools at our disposal are doing for us what they are supposed to be doing. Listen to your candidates and employees. What are they telling you? This two (free) resources are a great place to start when it comes to process improvement. Better yet, have you tried applying for a job at your company recently? How did that work out for you? Did you find you were able to portray an accurate picture of yourself in the online application process?

Finally, and above all else, as recruiters, let’s get back to using the phone more. It helps humanize the entire candidate experience. Not a lot of talent acquisition departments do this anymore, so here is a chance to stand out. If you need any help, just read any of the great articles that Maureen Sharib has written – you won’t be disappointed. As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Movie poster i robot” by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia

The Little Golden Nuggets of Recruiting

As Talent Acquisition Specialists/Recruiters, we have many tools at our disposal to help us find the right candidate(s) for our client(s). Setting aside technology/social media, the greatest “tool” at our disposal is our ability to build relationships. That’s right, news flash, if you are in recruiting you are in the relationship building business. Great recruiters actively grow and cultivate their networks and actively work to maintain these relationships within those networks. Candidates want to work with recruiters that they know and trust. The only way you get there is by building relationships.

Golden NuggetNow at this stage, I know I am not telling you anything that you don’t know. In terms of tools and sourcing tactics, there are far more qualified folks out there that you can follow and read about that will provide you with a TON of great information. Folks like Glen Cathey, Will Staney, Lars SchmidtMatthew Jeffery, Stacy Zapar and Jeremy Roberts. These folks are recruiting rock stars. What I can tell you though, is what has worked for me. I have probably conducted hundreds, maybe thousands of recruiting campaigns in my career. By far, the single most effective tool at my disposal has always been employee referrals. Depending on what/where you read, referrals seem to be often either overhyped or undersold. In my opinion, there is no such thing as overhyping the effectiveness of referrals. Most people know that (your) talented employees know other talented employees. It has been my experience that talented people don’t just refer someone because they want to receive some sort of monetary referral bonus. No, they refer because talented people want to work with other talented people. If your employees are engaged in what they do and they believe in your talent brand, they will refer others.

The beauty of referrals is that it is like having 50, 100 or even 1000+ recruiters working for you. My first stop on any campaign is to leverage my internal networks. I make it a point to constantly be speaking with employees about current and upcoming hiring needs. That way, we can manage the (passive) referrals proactively and then the (active) referrals during an immediate campaign. You need to make it a point to get the word out to your employees about EXACTLY what it is you are looking for. You should be doing this for all levels of positions; however, typically the more difficult the skillset is to find, the more effective a focused referral campaign probably will be.

Case in point, we recently ran a campaign out on the west coast of Canada for a very unique skill set. We knew that typical sourcing and recruiting tactics would not give us enough reach and access to the types of candidates we needed to be speaking with. Our first step was to get out in front of staff. We spent days spreading the word across our offices about the type of person (knowledge, skills, ability, performance profile) that we were looking for. We also honed in on our employees whose backgrounds were most similar to the type of individual we were looking for. (Thank you HRIS!) By knowing our employees’ backgrounds as well as being able to identify our best performers, we were able to leverage this referral/recruiting campaign with a great deal of success. The end result was that we were able to hire the majority of the individuals through referrals – no other recruiting costs involved. This couldn’t have been done just using LinkedIn ads/searches, internet searching, etc.

So, to come full circle, as I mentioned earlier, recruiting is about building relationships. However, these relationships are not always externally facing. You must look inside your organization at your current employees. Build these relationships and continue to nurture and foster them. Better internal relationships mean better referrals for you the recruiter! As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Photo courtesy of Les Haines/Flickr.com

Free Agent Frenzy – HR Version

For the sports fans/football fans out there, you all know that today at 4pm EST the NFL’s free agent period kicks off. This is essentially the NFL’s version of a talent free for all. Hundreds of NFL players will become unrestricted free agents today, which means that they are all free to sign with whatever team they want to for however much money they can get. As free agents, the very best players (best talent) command top dollar for longer contractual periods. The funny thing is, every year, in the chase to make more money and to win championships, both players and owners alike, make critical mistakes during this time period. Players leave simply for money and owners overspend/over value the free agents and make hasty decisions as they try and buy a championship.

The same comparator can be drawn when it comes to top talent within organizations looking to move on to perceived greener pastures. That is, unless you are under some sort of fixed term contract, as an employee, you are always in free agent mode. That is, you are free to change employers as you see fit and are able, provided you give proper notice to your current employer. In my years in the recruiting and HR business, I have seen a lot of people chase the dollars only to have it come back to haunt them – much like the NFL players do. Similarly, organizations NFL-FAtry and buy talent (overpay) as a way to compensate for their inability to attract, develop and retain the right core group of employees.

The biggest mistake that NFL players make is that they leave a team (company) and system (culture) that they are familiar and comfortable with which has also allowed them to have great success on the field. When these players become free agents, they jump to teams that offer them the highest dollars possible without considering how they will be able to perform in these new systems. Just like in business, the NFL has teams with such poor cultures, usually due to poor ownership, (the Oakland Raiders or Miami Dolphins) that it is hard for players to be successful, especially if they have come from an organization with strong culture focused on performance and winning (think the New England Patriots). In fact, rarely have players that have left teams with these type of “winning “ cultures gone on to realize the same or similar success with other teams. If you don’t believe, Google any big named free agent that has left New England or Baltimore (despite the Ray Rice issues) in the last 10 years and see if they have gone on to similar or greater success. Trust me, you will come up empty. The reasons are simple – leadership, culture and organizational stability at the top trumps dollars when it comes to setting people up for success. Meaning, just because you pay someone a ton of money, doesn’t mean they can and will perform for you.

So, if you are looking to make the leap from your current company to another for more money (as your main driver), you need to consider if you can have the same level of success and maintain the credibility of your personal brand if you do so. Now, I am not begrudging NFL players or you, my readers, for trying to make more money. Heck, we all have bills to pay! I simply mean you have to look at the big picture. NFL players will turn down $5 million a year on a 5 year deal with their current team to take $6 million a year for 4 years with another team. Yes, I know that is a total difference of $3 million in overall value however, the player is realizing approx. a 20% increase a year with one less year of employment. What happens in the NFL, because a lot of deals don’t contain guaranteed money, meaning, the player can be cut without penalty, is that after the first year or two, if the player’s performance isn’t at peak value or producing, they are out of a job. So how much additional money did they truly realize?

The same logic applies to us as employees. You may be able to increase your salary by 20% (who wouldn’t want to) but if you aren’t going to be set up for success, is it worth the damage to your professional brand? Do you really want to go through the misery of being part of a horrible organizational culture with poor leadership for the next 4-5 years of your career so you can realize a 20% bump in pay?

So, when considering a move purely based on money, you have to ask yourself, “Would I rather be playing for the New England Patriots and have a chance at winning the championship every year?” or; “Do I want to go purely for the money and play for the Jacksonville Jaguars where I have no chance at winning or success for the next 5 years, but I will take home more money?” Typically the average NFL free agent doesn’t consider this…perhaps you, as top talent, should? As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

PS – Darrelle Revis: Please heed my advice!

Image courtesy of The Revelation

You can’t always win on pure talent

One of the things in my personal life that I am very passionate about is the coaching of my daughter’s basketball team. I truly enjoy working with her and the rest of the team as they enhance their fundamental basketball skills and come together as a team. One of the things that we, as coaches, did very well at the start of the season was set the expectations as it pertained to the type of team culture we wanted to have. We were very clear with the girls (and their parents) that we expected them to show up for practices and games on time, be prepared to give 100% at practice/games, listen to what the coaches were trying to teach them and to treat each other and their opponents with respect.  We indicated to them back in October that if they bought into these expectations we would establish a supportive culture of performance that would lead to success (not quite in those “HR” words but you get my drift!)

People concept imageAs the season commenced, we lost more games than we won; however, the girls bought into what we were teaching, they gave 100%, they treated each other with respect and supported their teammates for the betterment of the team.  At the last game of the regular season, we ended up playing the top team in our division (who hadn’t lost a game all year) and we defeated them. Two weeks after that, we played that same team in the league final and beat them again. So what are the lessons learned here as it pertains to HR and business?

Let me be clear, on talent alone, the other team was/is superior to our girls. Generally speaking, their girls are more athletic and are better overall ball handlers and shooters. So on talent alone, they are superior. So what is/was the difference? It was the sum of the parts playing as a team. Our girls came together as a team and played a better team game. They bought into the culture, the expectations and were all very coachable. They bought into the team concept and how equal ball distribution translated into more points for everyone. They understood that it wasn’t about individual success but team success and at the end of the day, they enjoyed winning more than being the person on a losing team with more points.

So what does this all have to do with HR and business? Well, based on my experience, I think the same can be said about our organizations. Often in the war for talent (I still despise that expression) companies (i.e. Talent Acquisition folks) get so caught up in hiring the best talent that they can assemble (skill and experience-wise) that they lose sight of the fact that they should be building teams not collecting talent. With organizations, much like a basketball team, if you have too much “top talent”, there aren’t enough balls to go around to make everyone happy. If you simply have a collection of talented individuals working for you, but there are no expectations set for them, no culture established and no reason to come together as a team, then you will have talented people working in the best interests of themselves and not your company.

Much like the previously mentioned team we defeated, a collection of talented individuals is not going to be a competitive advantage if you can’t harness the power of the group to focus on the team outcomes. One of my favourite bloggers, Tim Sackett, wrote a post last year on his blog – “It’s Not a Talent Contest” that I think really hammers things home. Tim writes, “It’s not a ‘talent’ contest. It’s a ‘winning’ contest!” He further brings home his point by indicating that:

“…it doesn’t matter how talented the other team is, it all comes down to winning the game. Great, you have the best talent, but if you’re losing the game your high level of talent means nothing! …….in reality, the best talent might not help your organization ‘win’….business isn’t a talent game. It’s a winning and losing game…you don’t always need the most talented individuals to win. What you need is people who are willing to give that little bit of extra effort, over those who won’t. This discretionary effort gets you the win, over talented individuals who aren’t willing to give such effort. You need individuals that put the goal, the vision, first. They believe in what you are doing as an organization, and do what it takes to make those goals reality. You need individuals who want to see those around them succeed and are willing to sacrifice themselves, from time to time, to see their peers and coworkers succeed. This sacrifice has nothing to do with talent…..it’s about hiring the talent that will make our organizations successful.”

My apologies to Tim if he feels I edited this incorrectly (I can only hope that he is reading my blog!); however, I feel he is 100% bang on with this assessment. Your team has to have people that put the organization’s/teams goals first. We need to focus on hiring and retaining the right mix of talent that will make our organizations successful. As HR Pros, let’s agree that we should be advising and acting based on that principle. Let’s stop focusing on collecting talent as if we were trying to assemble a complete set of baseball cards. A collection of (top) talent is nothing if collectively they can’t make your organization better/successful. Much like the complete collection of baseball cards, once you assemble them, they typically stay in a box on a shelf collecting dust – they are of no use to you. We need to bring together that optimal mix of individuals that buys into your team concept – they are the ones that will help you to win…whether in business, or basketball. As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Image courtesy of David Castillo Dominici/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Recruiters: Can you answer THIS question?

As part of one of the ongoing themes of The Armchair HR Manager, I like to blog frequently about recruiting and all things talent acquisition. My writing, while often focused on Recruiters and HR Professionals, also tends to have messaging focused on job seekers as well. You see, I firmly believe that in order for the job seeker/recruiter relationship to work well, both parties need to be on a level playing field. That is, both parties are as transparent as possible with each other, as this helps promote candidate credibility and recruiter/organizational branding.

Recruiter QuestionIn order for recruiters to establish credibility as trust agents (credit to Chris Brogan for this term) of their organizations (whether they are in-house or third party recruiters) they need to first build trust with job candidates. A major step in doing this is to properly understand the position you are trying to fill. You don’t have to be a technical expert on the role but you do need to understand what it is you are recruiting for (so you can convey and evaluate) so you can explain to candidates what the expected performance outcomes are for the position, how success will be measured and how the role fits within the organizational structure. This knowledge will also help you to close, but more on that later.

Savvy job seekers will ask these types of questions in interviews (above), so recruiters, you better be prepared with the answers! With all of the focus on “passive” candidates these days (although I am not convinced that passives are the Holy Grail for recruiters) and the much improved job market, many recruiters are finding the scales tipping a bit in terms of the balance of power. That is, many job seekers are more informed, more patient and more selective than they ever have been. So recruiters really need to up their game to compete and land the best candidates.

For me, there is one very important question that recruiters must be able to answer in order to keep a top candidate engaged in their recruiting campaign. As mentioned before, the savvy job seeker will ask this key question EVERY time they interview and HOW the recruiter answers it will influence the candidate’s continued interest and involvement with the position for which they are being interviewed for.

The question is pretty straight forward: “Why should I come and work for your company/client? “ In essence, this where the recruiter demonstrates that they have been listening to the candidate so as to determine what is causing them to look for other employment, what their motivators are for making a change and what their job acceptance factors are. If they have truly been actively listening, the recruiter, vis-à-vis answering this question, can now sell/close the candidate on the job opportunity.

Let’s be clear, the “answer” to this question is not things like:

  • Free parking, free coffee, etc.
  • Great location
  • Great/fun co-workers
  • Vacation policy
  • Flexible Hours
  • Social events/social committee
  • “Good” pay and benefits

I think you get the point. Those are all “nice” things that can help define your culture, but for many candidates they are just perks. What the candidate wants to know, and what the recruiter needs to show, is that there is a potential match here for things like:

  • Ability to greater utilize their skills (which are perhaps very underutilized where they are now)
  • Opportunity to work on projects that provide them with a greater/different scope (i.e. as Project Manager)
  • Enhanced opportunities for professional development which may also include the opportunity to obtain a designation (PMP, P.Eng, CHRP, SPHR, CPA, etc.)
  • Opportunity to be mentored by a more senior professional
  • Greater alignment between their personal demands and work life
  • Greater career path for them – whether horizontally or vertically

There are many more “good” answers to this question, but you can clearly see the difference between rhyming off a bunch of work perks to a candidate vs. providing a deeper response(s) that align(s) with their professional goals. At the end of the day, that is what good recruiters can do – align the brand, culture and selling features of the organization with the candidates professional goals. So as recruiters, next job opening you are trying to fill, make sure you can answer that very important question. If you can’t, you have some homework to do. As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.

Image courtesy of Idea go/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

%d bloggers like this: