A common myth in a troubled economy is that recruiting is an easier task because there are so many available (i.e., unemployed) candidates to choose from. It is true that there are more people looking for jobs – but more people available will not assure you of finding the right person.
Chances are, in this employer's market you will receive a promising number of responses to a job post, but the chances are slim that you will find the most qualified talent in the marketplace utilizing this type of passive approach. In the process of discovering this, you may have invested an inordinate amount of time sifting through dozens of resumes from people who don’t fit the bill, and possibly even hours of interview time.
Astute hiring is astute hiring regardless of the economic climate. If you view each hire as an investment in your company's future, then you will apply the same diligence in an employer's market that you would be forced to apply in a more candidate-driven market. Why? Because unless you approach your hiring decision as an investment, you may find that rather than hiring a long-term executive or senior professional, you have hired a “temp” – in other words, someone whom you might have more easily recruited in this market than at other times but who will seek his or her ideal job when the market turns around...if not sooner.
To find the right person -- even in a job market where supply exceeds demand -- requires a targeted, strategic approach. First of all, regardless of what type of job market we are in, the A-player executive will typically be in demand. Even the top-notch executive who may have been forced into the job market due to downsizing will, by long developed habit, evaluate joining your company from the standpoint of making an investment (read: commitment) rather than as a short-term survival tactic. If your opportunity is not being scrutinized, be wary. If a candidate is being discriminating, it is more likely that he or she is taking you seriously -- and this is the type of person you want to hire -- not the person making a desperation move.
Therefore, the targeted hire who will most contribute to your success is most likely someone that you will need to actively seek -- and possibly even need to persuade -- even in this saturated employment market.
If you approach hiring as an "investment" accompanied by a strategic and selective approach, rather than as an exercise in expediency, then you will yield a higher return on your hiring efforts in the long run.
In the end, your company is only as strong as the people you hire.
Very thoughtfully and clearly written Donna. Completely agree with the points that you have made.
ReplyDeletePerhaps also worth considering is that, in a market where there is an abundance of candidates from whom to choose because of poor economy and consequent lay-offs, quite possibly one's most ideal candidate for a specific responsibility may not actually be in the obviously available pool simply because they are not only still currently fully employed but also, and consequently, very reluctant to risk jumping ship or even expose their preference to jump ship at this time for fear not only of being not selected by the target business but also of being discovered as 'disloyal' to their present employer and thus expose themselves to the possibility of being laid off.
Hence the search for the best candidate may require some stealth and significant diplomacy as well as all of the usual steps.
Thanks for your comment, Peter. Much appreciated and insightful as always.
ReplyDeleteBased on my experience, you are exactly right about people being even less inclined to make a move or even "raise their hand" in a troubled economy -- even if not completely happy in their present role.
I didn't mean for this post to be a plug for using an executive recruiter, but I have seen that the type of relationship-building effort that a recruiter can extend may be needed to help reach more passive candidates -- which ties into what you stated as the need for "significant diplomacy." I like the "stealth" part -- one of the most fun aspects of my job.
Actually Donna, your post has not come across as a "plug" nor did it occur to me that this post might be a plug per se. I simply found the content to be very informative and relevant; even enlightening for anyone who has struggled with the option to use or not use a recruiter.
ReplyDeleteThat said, however, if you cannot use your own blog to make a "plug" for "Using a Recruiter" since you are a very effective recruiter, then what is the value or point of this blogging? We market ourselves only by demonstrating through example that we can deliver by showing we have the knowledge and experience to so deliver: Blogging merely enables us to do just that.
Secondly, as someone that has used recruiters and been a candidate of recruiters down through the years, I'll happily support your efforts to encourage clients to use a recruiter and, in particular, to use your services because I know that you deliver value ~ or, as I would say about myself and apply it equally to you, no one actually "pays" for using your services because the results that you deliver return far more in value to the clients than anything paid out by them in costs for your services.
As I've said elsewhere in acknowledgment of another post of yours, a good recruiter such as yourself is easily worth their weight in gold because they will work with the client, to save them time, money, grief and effort in finding the best possible potential candidates when the client enables their recruiter to be a fully conversant, participating member of their team in helping to build the client's business.