The Spectrum of Recruiting

The Spectrum of Recruiting

Most recruiting firms are somewhere in the middle of the recruiting spectrum. At the top of the spectrum is the recruiter who convinced Lou Grishner to leave American Express and take on the role of CEO for IBM. I was told that this recruiter received $250K and that the deal was consummated by cell phone in the recruiter’s living room.

These kinds of deals are:

• Low volume, high margin
• Very personal in nature, relationship building is a key to success
• Candidate personality traits are more important than skills match
• Candidates are unique and precious
• Candidates are met face to face every time.
• Lots of face time with both client and candidate
• Candidate is often put through psychological evaluations
• Significant research of the candidate’s background is conducted
• The job is “sold” to the candidate, sometimes requiring months of “selling” before candidate agrees to meet with the client
• The job description is carefully presented to the candidate
• The financial terms are presented to candidate very carefully, very controlled method

At the bottom of the spectrum are the very large global Staffing Companies (such as Manpower) placing minimum wage warehouse workers.

These kinds of deals are:

• High volume, low margin
• Impersonal, transactional – no "face time" required
• Candidate personality traits are not relevant
• Candidates are readily available, viewed as interchangable
• Candidates are often not met before sending to client
• Candidate evaluation is typically for drugs and criminal convictions
• Candidates are eager to accept the job (no selling required)
• Compensation is simple and presented as mater of fact. No negotiation required.

It would not be smart or cost effective to use the recruiting procedures required for the top end of the spectrum for jobs at the bottom end of the spectrum. But, the client naturally wants that level of service for the same price as the lower level. Welcome to the world of contingency recruiting. Unrealistic expectations all the way around.

Hiring for Motivation – Investing in People

Have you ever hired someone who you thought was under qualified, and subsequently became happily surprised by how quickly they learned the job and became a star?

Enthusiasm, and the joy of feeling like we are growing is the fuel behind great performers. Great performers work with the deep understanding that every job is a stepping stone. They know that they are on a path to a new, more exciting stage in their career. They are "juiced" and excited, feeling like they are making progress toward an exciting new lifestyle. When we hire based only on past performance, we are loosing the benefit of tapping into this powerful motivating force.

So, how do we determine a candidate's true motivating force? The first step is to seriously consider candidates who at first appear to be under qualified. Many of the best candidates are never seriously considered for the role, because the corporate culture does not encourage that amount of on the job learning. The candidate is labeled as under qualified, and is not viewed as a potential candidate. This is a deep component of corporate culture. The best companies see themselves as institutions of learning, and have incorporated this on the job learning as a part of their normal processes.

Once the company begins to seriously consider these marginally qualified candidates, then the underlying motivation must be uncovered during the interview. This is accomplished by getting the candidate to relax and start talking about future dreams and aspirations. Ambition. Where do they want to go, and why do they want to get there? By listening carefully to their answers and reading between the lines, the truth will come out. You want to tap into the excitement of learning something new, of growing on the job and really going somewhere. People will surprise you.

There have been many studies that demonstrate that academic achievement is an imperfect predictor of future success. One very successful way to predict future success is to look for an example of passion being expressed at some point in the candidate’s past. Look to see if they became focused on one project and really “blew it out of the water.” This would be an example of their tapping into their passion and working diligently for a future goal. This is a better predictor of future achievement that a consistent stream of successful cooperation with the institutional powers that are governing their behavior during that time.

Another benefit to employing this cultural norm is an increased focus on quality control. Giving a task to an employee with the knowledge that their may be some deficiency in the work they perform obviously requires a heightened attention to supervision and quality control. Conversely, assuming that the person who has performed this task a thousands times before will continue to deliver is a dangerous assumption. With financial reality acting as a sword of Damocles hanging over their head, they probably will. But things happen and individual motivation can sometimes change dramatically. Companies who take the safe path and only hire those with the exact experience needed often end up with a group of people who are boring and simply going through the motions. Their is little excitement and very little innovation. The group lacks power. The best long term strategy is to create a learning organization, and not depend on a collection of pros.

Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Performance!

Our culture’s current selection process sure is sloppy. We have all seen this statement when investing in a mutual fund – “past performance is no guarantee of future performance.” Why don’t we apply this concept when selecting a candidate? Isn’t it true that when someone is hired at an ice cream store, they are encouraged to eat as much ice cream as they want when they start – because the owner knows they will get sick of it and never want it again?

We live in the information age, and candidate selection is all about information. People (hopefully) are learning and changing faster than ever before. In fact the rate of this change is accelerating. But our recruiting and selection process remains archaic. "Find me a square peg for a square hole."

If rectangular candidate is selected, the recruiting manager may look incompetent. But what happens when our employees are changing their shape every 6 months? The square peg you selected 6 months ago just became a star shaped employee, and your competitor is desperately looking for a star. So, s/he leaves your company, and you are back to square one. But you still look good - because the right shape was selected. Surely no one could have predicted the candidate would change that fast! That's OK, because your boss just found a better job and you have been left on your own anyway.

Would it not be better to hire a plastic, round peg, and then routinely ask them to work at new stations until they are fashioned into a square? We are surrounded by employees and candidates who know 85% of a particular job. But instead of helping them learn the remaining 15%, we let them go and pay a recruiter to find someone who knows 100%. We usually end up with someone who knows 92% of the job, but is skilled at interviewing and "fakes it till they make it." Our competitor hires our former employee who they think knows 100%, but then learns on the job and soon knows 95%. What a stupid system!

This kind of thinking has made people today loyal to their discipline, but not to their employer. It takes courage to hire the round peg for the square hole, and with rare exceptions, our corporate structures just do not allow this kind of courage to be expressed.

In today's environment, we must view all of our employees as if they were volunteers. We all have so many other options that now, from the employers perspective, $1.00 of humane consideration is worth $20.00 in compensation.