Seattle - A Recruiter's Perspective

Trust: Earned and Lost

Kristen Fife — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:51:37 -0400

One of my professional colleagues posted a question about earning trust over on LinkedIn. It got me to thinking about a conversation I had yesterday with the CEO of a niche recruiting board. He was running through the half-hour sales spiel on the service. And the more he talked, the more of my trust he lost.

He made the sweeping statement that "job postings are the most valuable source of candidates for any organization." Um, not true. When I asked him about the candidate resume database, he dismissed it as being rather unimportant. (He obviously failed to note that my title is "Sourcing Specialist".) But the absolute kicker, to me, was his lack of response to *this* question:

"How does your service handle OFCCP compliance functionality?"

Dead silence for about ten seconds. "What's that?"

Then there is the email and phone call exchange I had with a contact from a local networking listserv we both belong to. She is employed, but not 100% happy at her job. One of her friends sent her a JD at a local startup that piqued her interest. She used LinkedIn to connect up with the hiring manager, had a phone screen, and he requested an interview ASAP as he was leaving for vacation. He put her in touch with the external recruiter they had hired to help with their talent management. My contact's interactions with this recruiter were so bad that she reached out to me to see if recruiting had changed *so drastically* in this economy that she would have to put up with some very disturbing behaviors. (Recruiter asked for her *current* manager's contact info for a reference prior to the interview, told her that her references were all male therefore she obviously didn't get along with female coworkers.) My contact knows that I am very active and well connected in the local recruiting community and reached out to me for a confidential reality check.

The upshot of it all is that this recruiter is going to lose the organization a very qualified, well-connected passive candidate because of her heavyhanded and completely unprofessional behavior.

Conversely, I found out about a position that is opening up in our organization, and I reached out not only to two candidates I know personally and sent along, but also to one of my trusted industry contacts. He had contacted me earlier this week for candidate referrals for an opening at their firm, and I sent him over a LinkedIn profile. In turn, he not only sent me several candidates, but also the LI profile of someone that will be laid off at his company at the end of this week, with the request not to contact her until next week.

I use a metaphor for trust, be it personal or professional. I consider relationships akin to a learning environment, or a class. Everyone starts with an A, and by our own actions, we either keep a high grade, or we get a lower grade. Beyond a certain point you have forfeited the right to my trust (and in turn I'm sure the same is applicable), and once that point is reached, it's nigh impossible to re-establish former levels.

And trust is at the foundation of your professional reputation. As I mentioned in my last post, reputation *is* your business right now. Grow it, nurture it, and guard it well.

Exchanging the "Cold Call" for the "Warm Relationship" Business Model

Kristen Fife — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:11:10 -0400

The last day or so I've been engaging in and following a LinkedIn discussion started by a third party recruiter about the frustrations he has with getting candidates in front of hiring managers, that there seems to be even more "interference" from the corporate recruiter or HR agents at potential clients.

The discussion generated lively comments from other contingency as well as corporate recruiters, and most of what I would say was already stated in one form or another. *Until* one of the other contingency recruiters asserted that "most" corporate recruiters have no understanding of the agency/retained search business.

I took great exception to that and told him so. Perhaps it is because I've been in the IT recruiting world in Seattle where Microsoft has turned the contingent staffing model into an art and where most recruiters have at least *some* agency experience and aren't considered "well rounded" (translate that to "employable") professionals until they *do" have it, but I would say only about 10% of the corporate recruiters I know have *no* agency experience. They *do*, however, have *previous sales* experience. Considering my vast network (both in and out of Seattle) I'd say I personally know about 200 recruiters. So please, don't tell me that I don't understand contingency based recruiting. I did my stint as an agency as well as independent recruiter, so yes, I know the model.

I've also *been* the corporate recruiter receiving so many unsolicited phone calls from agencies that I finally stopped answering my phone. So the professional that I took exception with asked me for "alternative" methods for gaining market share.

So let's take a look at a few things. First of all, the term "cold call". OK, just the very image evoked is off-putting. Especially in a tight market, if I have a need for a contingency based recruiter, I'm going to contact people I trust either *in* the agency/retained search world, or by reaching out to colleagues for referrals.

Let's also consider a couple of other things. The recruiting profession has been suffering immensely the last six-twelve months with the recession, and anyone lucky enough to *have* a paying position is doing their professional best to make themselves as valuable as possible. So why, I ask you, would I take the very few requisitions I have and turn them over to an external agency, effectively telling my supervisor that I'm *unable to do my job*? HR/Recruiting is accountable for managing the influx of talent into any organization, and unless I have some extremely niche specialty position open that I have no idea how (or resources) to fill, I'm going to do my best to fill it myself.

And then there is the candidate pool. Now, I'm an expert sourcer. I realize not every recruiter is good at or even enjoys sourcing. But in *this* economy, I'm pretty certain that most recruiters have a much higher overlap access to candidates that the retained search recruiter does for standard profiles. Let's be honest, most candidates are managing their own career searches right now. The passive candidates, if you can pry their resumes from them, are less likely to leave a secure job to move anytime soon, and most companies are being very tight-fisted on relo. So I'm guessing that my candidate pool is pretty similar to yours. So I'm not going to pay you 20% plus to give me candidates I've already seen, contacted, evaluated, etc. etc.

Social networking and the economic climate has brought one truism to light: these days, the employment market is about *networking*. We tell job seekers that they need to network, network, and network some more into their next job. I don't see the recruiting side of the equation being any different. And picking up the phone to call someone you don't know, or trying to "slide" a resume in front of a hiring manager by going around HR is *not* networking. The hard sales edge of retained recruiting has *got* to soften, and more relationship-building, branding, and professional recognition is going to have to become the standard.

What does this mean? You have to become *known* in your local professional circle and gain name recognition coupled with a good reputation. This means attending local recruiting and job networking events and speaking to both recruiters and candidates. Volunteer your time to help candidates understand the process and how to conduct an effective job search and how to write a good resume; at least in Seattle, I know of at *least* a dozen job search networking groups. If you don't have a blog (a big mistake in this day and age), start one. You need to show your peers and potential clients that you know what you are doing, understand the market, industry, and how to produce quality candidates. If you have been ignoring social media, it is time to remedy that. Corporate recruiters are jumping on the Twitter bandwagon, and if you want to service them, you should be going to those places where they already are.

Finally, this whole networking business model is about *forming communities* and making very human, very real, connections. Rather than call up Jeannie Smith at Acme Widget company to say "hey, I've got this great candidate for you!" try approaching via a mutual LinkedIn connection and ask if you could meet with her for coffee *just* to introduce yourself and ask her about her company and their business. Leave the candidate resumes until after you've established a rapport with her and an understanding of her company. It's also time to start contacting former candidates and satisfied clients for referrals.

Last but not least, this is the time when splits are going to be the best deals for a lot of recruiters. Those recruiters that *do* have strong business ties are going to need help with sourcing and screening. The candidate influx is overwhelming, and often you can partner with other third party organizations to help them out.

Falling Down On Our Job

Kristen Fife — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:36:22 -0400

You know, I was talking to a friend of mine that is a Senior Manager/Director-level IT professional who was recently laid off. He was moaning about poorly written job descriptions, and what he was telling me really bothered me. A lot.

There was the "CIO" position calling for a high school diploma and 2-3 years of experience. He actually emailed the company and found out it was a startup with fewer than six employees. They were really looking for a network admin and thought a flashy title would attract someone entrepreneurial. OK, this is obviously an amateurish company that has no clue how to write a job description to save their lives.

But what about the global telecom company that was looking for a Software Manager opening that had a requirement of "5-7 years experience using .NET 2.0 or above." In Seattle, I can tell you exactly when .NET became "the platform". In 2004. He spoke to the recruiter and she told him that he didn't have enough .NET 3.0 experience; the Hiring Manager wanted someone with at least five years of experience with .NET 3.0; but here's the catch, 3.0 has only *been around for three years or so*. We are only on version 3.5 now. My friend tried to explain that to the recruiter, but she obviously had no understanding of the technology she was recruiting for.

As a recruiter, I have friends and colleagues constantly asking me "why do companies DO this?" It ranges from the whole lack of follow through for candidate experience to hyping job descriptions way out of proportion (sheer hypocrisy, IMHO, when we complain about exaggerated resumes!) How many times can I say to my professional network that hiring managers generally write job descriptions, and unless a recruiter is *really knowledgable* about the industry and the job, s/he has no idea why two "requirements" may be mutually exclusive, or that sometimes a company will use a generic JD to build a pipeline, or that perhaps they organization has an internal candidate lined up but for legal reasons has to post the job externally? It's getting real old, real fast.

And in my own search for a position in the last several months I am *appalled* at the lack of what I see as "professional courtesy." If I have a phone screen or in person interviews with a member of an organization for a recruiting position, and you don't give me the courtesy of answering my email or phone call a week later to follow up on my candidacy, why on earth would I consider working for you? Obviously you don't value the candidate experience.

Yes, we are swamped with resumes and our sourcing may be falling by the wayside. Yes, our hiring managers are being incredibly slow to respond to us and candidates are getting desperate. Yes, we may even be concerned that we will ride out this economy. But many of the pains the candidates are feeling are not new, they are not unique, and as a profession we are giving ourselves a bad reputation, worse than even it was before. My own rule of thumb is that if a candidate has spoken with anyone from my organization (phone screen for example) the deserve a politely worded email or phone call to let them know they are no longer a candidate for the position.

If organizations are laying off their seasoned recruiters in an effort to save money, they are doing themselves a huge injustice when job descriptions and situations like the ones outlined above become more commonplace than not. Recruiters should be some of the most valuable gatekeepers in any organization - be it corporate, non-profit, or agency environments - has in their arsenal. And part of that gatekeeping responsibility lies with the recruiter to push back on badly written job descriptions. It goes to the "account management" portion of our profession. *We* are the experts at what we do, and our hiring managers should respect that knowledge and work in partnership with us.

Why Sourcing Should Be A Priority

Kristen Fife — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:20:48 -0400

In this economy, most recruiters seem to be overwhelmed with incoming resumes. Unfortunately, when you have almost 700 applications for one job, most of them unqualified (over or under, take your pick), it means that recruiters are left with the standard keyword search.

I recently joined a local Job Seekers' Networking event, and I was explaining the importance and mechanics of keyword searching to the job seekers. The logical question that came up was "how do recruiters construct their search strings?"

The answer is not simple. As I told them, an experienced recruiter will use keywords from the job description, but will *also* use similar phrases that have to do with not just the actual job description but also other functional skills or knowledge that might be relevant and net the better candidates. And, either from a lack of time or understanding, many recruiters never set up their sourcing queries beyond the job description in hand.

When I see "Junior Recruiter" or "Internet Recruiter" titles, I cringe because so often, these individuals are set the task of sourcing job boards and resume databases. Sourcing is an *advanced* skill, not a basic mimicry. And when we are bombarded with resumes to the nth degree, it behooves us to be *more* thorough, not less. Part of the basic innate skills of a recruiter is to learn and understand the industry and types of positions they are recruiting for.

Technical Recruiters in this area generally make more money than, say, sales recruiters. Part of that is because there are so many pieces of information with technical jargon and an understanding of how things *work* to learn and understand. I can see relief cross a hiring manager's face when we are discussing a technical position and I ask questions indicating I know the difference between a server and an application, or whether they need an automated software *tester* or a software design *engineer in test* capable of authoring the test harness and potentially debugging the code.

It's the same with any industry; healthcare recruiters need to know a ton of medical terms and operational procedures that are Greek (and Latin!) to the rest of us. It takes a lot of time, effort, and expertise to learn some industries. Setting a "junior" professional to try and excerpt the candidates may narrow the flow of resumes, but it doesn't necessarily generate "qualified" results. So many recruiters dislike "sourcing" as a necessary evil of the profession. I see it as a fun puzzle that challenges my creativity and knowledge.

I guess I would urge all of you out there that are overwhelmed with resumes to take the time to do some in-depth sourcing. Hone your skills. Ask hiring managers (or if you don't have access to them, your Account Rep) for related terminologies and skill sets for creating search strings. And whatever you do, take the time to learn as much about your client and their industry as you can. The internet puts an incredible library at your fingertips.

Oh, and you can always contact me if you need a superb sourcer :)

Forget the Passive Candidate

Kristen Fife — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:35:43 -0400

I read a compelling post over on LinkedIn earlier this week. It was a well crafted argument, supported by valid facts and figures about the current economic crisis, and why in this economic climate sourcing for the passive candidate is *a mistake*. You heard me.

After reading the LI post I started mulling it over and based on the outlook in the posting, I happen to agree with Mr. Caro. I will say, however, that I am vastly disappointed to find that his well crafted argument was just a long drawn out sales pitch for his company. I understand that he is philosophically espousing a new recruiting paradigm, but in the end it boils down to a sales pitch.

That being said, I decided the *idea* was worth a blog. The basic premise is that the best way to stimulate the economy *and* diminish the sheer numbers of unemployed is to put them back to work. Seems simple enough, right? But here is the catch: when the "holy grail" of most recruiters is *still* the passive candidate, we are hurting ourselves.

Just because someone is "still" employed in a sea of layoffs, this does *not* mean they are by default a rock star. If their company has been making cuts, it may mean that keeping them is the most economic measure; or, they may have some intrinsic skillset that is necessary for the health of the company. And, if we step outside our good natured competitive profession to serve the greater good, taking that employee away from the company for the good of our client is *ethically* a poor decision.

I'm not saying that identifiable "rock stars" that have had a demonstrable increase to the bottom line should be abandoned, but I *am* starting to believe that we, as a profession, truly need to reconsider our recruiting goals, our social responsibilities, and try to help out our fellow professionals instead of necessarily trying to pry someone from their existing job.

(Sales Doc below.)

http://www.rgbhr.com/download/rgbhrsummary.pdf

Times - They Are A Changing

Kristen Fife — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:22:04 -0400

Isn't it amazing how much things have changed in the last six months? Seattle has gone from being a haven of recruiting opportunities for the many to a mad scramble of the many vying for the same few jobs.

With the layoffs at Microsoft two weeks ago, many Staffing Consultants are wondering what to expect in the weeks and months ahead. Those of us with ties to MS Staffing former colleagues were furiously sending email back and forth trying to see if anyone we knew personally had been given their walking papers. Thus far, I only have heard of one person that was let go, and that was third-hand from someone that *used* to work with her.

Add to this the massive layoff announcements around the country and globe, and the mood for recruiters is somber bordering on panic-stricken.

Over on HRPN, the global HR Yahoogroup I co-moderate, we are seeing more and more people joining our sister HR job board in droves. A recruiting friend of mine has been working to build the Seattle Job Social Network. The first Social was last week and it was *packed*. We are exploring options for programming, and I have several presentations I've used over the last few years as well as the entries generated on my job hunting blog. I'm even trying to engage my consulting partner in designing a resume and job board for the exclusive use of the Job Social Network (we are an internet and database company, after all.) We are all besieged, daily, by this person or that individual, looking for work.

There is an air of unease, and a fervent prayer that the recent change in US Administrations will help jumpstart the economy. I think I feel the most for the graduating seniors, especially with degrees in finance/accounting. This is a miserable economy to be entering, especially when *so many* experienced professionals in the field are jumping on low-paying jobs just to be able to put food on the table.

Things will get better. There are still companies out there, and recruiters are exceeding lucky that we have a job that has the capacity to be 100% virtual. It's just time to make those connections, find those clients, and leverage those networks to try and ride out the economy.

The Focus is on Compensation

Kristen Fife — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:42:59 -0400

Lately I've been seeing an *awful* lot of compensation openings (Director of, analyst, specialist, etc.) coming across the wires around the country. With the recent economic fallout I think a lot of executives aren't going to be happy with comp restructuring in the next 12 months. Not only that, but I wonder if compensation model numbers in general are going to fall? How many companies will have wage freezes on? Interestingly, these openings haven't been in the financial field. Manufacturing, health/bio, some technology.

Let's be honest, it isn't exactly the *best* time to be a recruiter. I'm working on a lot of independent projects right now. More and more recruiters are flooding the market, especially in Seattle due to some recent corporate restructuring around town. The name of the game now, more than ever, is networking and working your contacts.

The agencies are faring a little better, but a *lot* of the corporate recruiters I know cringe at the thought of returning (or entering) the agency market right now. The agency comp structure in Seattle tends to be rather lower than the cost of living, making it hard to make a decent wage if clients aren't hiring.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens. Most of the projections I've seen are saying things won't start to look up until June of 2009, probably closer to the end of the summer. So we have 7+ months of panic and hardship to look forward to? It'll be interesting to see what the compensation trends look like both in recruiting and across the board by then.

Recruiting and Common Courtesy

Kristen Fife — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:01:25 -0400

I've said it before and I'll say it again. We, as an industry, need to guard our employment brand, especially in how we treat our candidates. Today's candidates may be tomorrow's business partners.

I recently had phone conversations with: a staffing lead; a staffing manager; an HR Manager; and a VP of HR for a company looking to establish an office in Seattle in response to being added to the Microsoft Vendor Umbrella. The last bit of my conversation with the VP was that I could expect to receive communication for a live meeting in the next week or so.

I waited. I never head back. I sent the Staffing Lead email and left voicemail asking them what was going on. I never heard another word. You can be sure that I will *never* use this agency for any openings I may need bin the future.

I was at a wedding two weeks ago. The bride is a friend from the staffing community, and many of the guests on her side were part of the recruiting world here in Seattle. I started talking to the guest sitting next to me at the reception, and she handed me her card and told me she would love to talk to me. I emailed her the following day, and we set up a phone screen for the following week, which went well. She forwarded my resume along, and I got a call from a Recruiting Assistint requesting my schedule to set up in person meetings. I gave her my availability, and she told me that we would shoot for the following Wednesday for me to meet with several of the recruiting staff. She told me to expect a schedule confirmation.

Not only did I not receive a confirmation, I never heard from her. I set aside *my* time and postponed other business and personal commitments. I had to get the fellow guest from the wedding involved just to find out what was going on.

What does all of this say to me? That our industry has *earned* the reputation for rudeness that we have. What is the NUMBER ONE candidate complaint? "I never heard back from the recruiter."

My rule of thumb is that if someone from my organization has had any sort of conversation with a candidate, that person deserves a personalized response in a *timely* manner. Send email, leave a voicemail. It really isn't that difficult. I don't care what my req load is, I can have a standard template response that tells prospective candidates that they are no longer in consideration. And for goodness' sake, if you *tell* someone to expect a followup, do it.

Our economy is in turmoil. It is going to turn around sometime. Organizations will need an infusion of talent. You can be sure the individual you spurn today will remember, and tell their colleauges and friends.

The New Kids in Town

Kristen Fife — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:04:17 -0400

The recruiting world in Seattle is a bit shaken up. One of the mainstays of our profession, Microsoft, is closing down a lot of contract recruiter hiring as of October 15th. Some people were muttering "layoffs", but these *aren't* layoffs. These are *temporary contract employees*, not full time staff. But there are a lot of them and soon the Seattle market is going to be glutted with unemployed recruiters.

The upshot is that there are a lot more contract openings across the board at MS in just about every division and discipline. Like many companies, MS is an industry leader faced with compliance mandates from OFCCP. What it has done is changed the face of recruiting for the company, and the company has made several drastic changes in the last two years in their recruiting model which has created a lot of jobs for local recruiters (as contractors), but which has been very costly for the company.

Recently, they have outsourced their entire contractor management business to a third party. Soon, I believe there will be a lot of agency positions available and Microsoft experience, as ever, will be a gold standard for new agencies that are joining the fray. But new processes and tools in place combined with a slowdown in filling FT headcount, there are going to be a lot of growing pains. And, many of these companies are not local and have not dealt with an entity with such a complex recruiting culture.

The company has a long history of centralizing its business groups in Redmond, despite advances in technology which makes virtual work teams a viable employment model. Seattle is just starting to feel the brutal impact of the economy with the collapse of WaMu (Washington Mutual). Just as in the late 90's, we are about 6-8 months behind the rest of the country in terms of housing and employment downturns. But even with all the strong technical talent in the Seattle area, there are only so many contractors available locally at any given time and most local companies have a time limit in place for extended assignments to guard against co-employment lawsuits (a legacy from Microsoft in the mid-90's).

So, from a business perspective, I find myself in a unique situation. I have worked as a contractor on and off for Microsoft (with various companies in different roles) since 1996, which means I understand the life of a contractor. I have worked as an agency contractor for one of their premiere staffing partners so I understand guidelines that have been established for the agency model. Finally, I have worked as a corporate recruiter on full time roles at Microsoft. I have an inside track for aspiring employees (full time OR contractor) in that I know what resume(s) will garner attention and have a better chance of finding their way in front of a recruiter or a hiring manager. I am growing my resume consulting business and I have several clients both inside and outside of Microsoft referring business my way. I have been courted by several of the "new" agencies looking for MS experience. I have offered my expertise to them as a Liaison to help with training and understanding the cultural transitions and hiring manager expectations (as opposed to becoming one more agency recruiter). Unfortunately, one of those new agencies left a bad taste in my mouth with their sub-par follow-up to several phone conversations with them. So, I'm waiting to see what will become of the remaining new kids and how they fare against their incumbent competition.

The Functional Resume - Why Not?

Kristen Fife — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:31:26 -0400

Recently I have received requests from colleagues or candidates for resume reviews for functional resumes (I got one this morning from a LinkedIn contact.) Most recruiters, myself included, are polarized on the issue of functional resumes. Very rarely do they tell me what I want to know, and I posted this information in response to someone asking for tips and tricks on using a functional resume versus a chronologic format with a Summary. As we all know, a generic resume that gives me no information in the first pass generally doesn't get much consideration, even if I scan the entire document.

1) Hiring managers and recruiters want to see a progression of your skills as it relates chronologically to your work history. A list of skills followed by a bunch of job titles gives no indication what you have been doing in the last 3-5 years. There is no context for how you gained the skills and how they have been applied.

2) Functional resumes don't tend to come up in keyword searches. Boolean searching uses algorithms that search for the *number of times* keywords are repeated within a document. So listing your skills once in the skill section equates to it coming up as a low stack rank in a search return, and this is currently how most recruiters source candidates.

3) Usually functional resumes are used to hide some information like a long gap in employment, or outdated skills (the very thing hiring managers *don't* want).

4) The best time to use a functional resume is if you are in a truly portfolio based industry such as producer, PR/Advertising, or freelancer w/ multiple clients concurrently. If you are using the same skill set across different cients, that is when a functional resume makes sense.

5) A functional resume gives no indication of career progression and how you take ownership of your career and move forward. For example, a few months ago I was hiring a senior accountant. I had a candidate send me a functional resume for the last 15 years. I asked her for a chronologic resume, and she basically copied/pasted her functional skills into each and every job. She had worked at both larger and smaller companies throughout her career, so there should have been some differences. She should have been taking on more responsibility at smaller companies and more training opportunities at larger ones. The message she gave was that she had no ambition, no motivation to better herself and was just looking for a paycheck.

Regarding a summary section, this is actually standard and preferred/appreciated in the industry now. If you are going to use one these are some helpful guidelines.

A) Numbers tell the story. % of productivity increased, $saved/earned, budgets managed, people managed, size of project, etc. Use them if you can.

B) *No more* than 5-7 bullet points.

C) *MOST IMPORTANT* - targeted. Don't give your reader generic glop. Everyone works well on a team, is organized and motivated, has great communication skills blah blah blah. Give your reader *solid examples of what you have done*. Think of crafting your resume as you would go into an interview. These days most companies use some form of behavioral-based interviewing, the premise of which is that past performance and behaviors are a likely indicator of future workstyle and accomplishments. Use the summary section to show *your* strengths and skills.

D) You have the top 2/3 of a page to catch your reader's attention. These days most resumes are sent electronically, so when we open the document/email, it is that prime real estate that needs to be compelling enough to make us want to look more.

Video Content From Candidates

Kristen Fife — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:11:45 -0400

Video resumes seem to be a "hot" topic in recruiting these days. Recruiters and, yes, employment attorneys are polarized on both sides of this very controversial fence. I received an email from a journalist I have worked with in the past on my opinion on video resumes and video conferencing for interviews, and how a candidate can best prepare for both/either of those.

The detractors have a couple of basic rallying cries regarding video resumes:
-It is too likely to open my company up to discrimmination claims.
-Viewing videos takes too long in comparison to reading a resume.

On the "It's coming, get used to the idea" camp, we have the "young" professionals who argue that:
-Video is how the new(er) candidates are communicating with each other (consider Youtube). It's inevitable.
-A video resume has no more possibility for discrimmination than an in-person interview.
-Look at how Europe has created a viable market using video and phones to communicate.
-Recruiters would get a chance to see how a candidate presents themselves on a video rather than just reading about them.
-It's a more polished, more personable and more professional way to interact with the candidate.

OK, first I'm going to address the *title* I have chosen for this topic. "Video Content", not "video resume". I believe there is a third option to using video media as a way for a candidate to communicate.

First off, I'm *against* video resumes. My reasons fall into the discrimmination category, for the most part. Rather than just prattle on it, I'm going to refer everyone to several studies conducted over the last decade that show that societally we are predisposed to discrimmination:

Attractive people make more money, are seen as more reliable, and generally have an advantage over their homelier counterparts. Below are just a very few articles referencing these studies.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/Careers/07/08/looks/

http://womeninquire.com/index.php/Why-Attractive-People-Get-Better-Jobs.html

http://www.onrec.com/newsstories/20805.asp

http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2008/04/08/get-hired-get-a-raise-and-get-paid-more-by-improving-your-appearance/

This in and of itself is enough of a social phenomenon to alarm me as a recruiter. There is also the fact that not everyone has access to video equipment and software editing tools. Until such time as these tools are widely available to *everyone*, this is a form discrimmination against those that cannot afford access to such tools. Nowadays, every public library offers free computer usage, and all US unemployment offices have computers that are free to use for job hunting. In Europe, I had no problem finding Internet Cafes all over the place priced attracively for students. When this type of access is the case with video resumes, when it isn't cost prohibitive to access the tools that *create* the modality, then I'll consider it. With current resume formats, there is more help available to create a very accessible and relatively uniform way of transmitting information. On top of that, I see there being a plethora of IP issues that are lurking below the surface that haven't even been *mentioned*.

So, why do I mention "video content"?

I believe that candidates that are serious about reaching recruiters with video media consider using a video *portfolio* that is referenced in their standard resume. If a candidate has the tools to create a video resume, they certainly have the tools to put together a portfolio.

Although a portfolio conjures thoughts of creative industries replete with websites or digital imagery, anyone using PowerPoint can create a "video" portfolio. As a recruiter that often answers questions on resume construction, my first answer is "always make sure your resume is targeted. Use numbers and statistics", and if you can do that, you can create a PowerPoint presentation describing your project or work as it relates to your experiences, whatever it may be. If you truly want to create a "video", then taking before and after footage with your camera *without you sitting in front of it* gives your reviewer an idea of what you have done and the difference it makes. It takes far more creativity for, say, a recruiter to put together a compelling story with their account management and sourcing strategies than it does to sit in front of a camera and just "talk". I work part time in a women's clothing store, and all over the back room we have signs and graphs showing our top producers, and their names get published monthly in our newsletter; certainly taking video footage of these would be a unique way for a top producer to "show" rather than just "tell" (an axiom in writing/publishing) their story. Just a thought.

As a technical recruiter, obviously I try and keep at the forefront of tools and technology that impact not just my industry but society in general. The recruiting industry, at least in North America, is not ready to handle all the ramifications of video resumes. We need more time to analyze the longer-term effects of how this would impact discrimmination, not to mention time management. The fifteen seconds it takes me to scan a resume wouldn't be enough for a candidate to do more than introduce themselves on a video, and quite honestly I don't have the time to change those patterns. With the requisition load most recruiters have these days, it just isn't feasible to ask them to triple or quadruple their own workload, nor is it economically viable to hire sourcing recruiters for the sole purpose of evaluating "good" (and how would we apply a standard to video resumes to determine this?) video resumes and take the "pick of the crop" for further consideration.

Talk to me in five or six years. Maybe things will have changed, laws will evolve that don't include OFCCP and EEOC mandates that make recruiters and employees nervous about just *evaluating* a candidate via current channels.

Redefining the "passive" candidate's importance in recruiting

Kristen Fife — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:46:22 -0400

We all strive to go after the "passive" candidate. That person, who is happily and productively employed already, isn't interested in leaving his/her current employer. The rationale is that the passive candidate is obviously a valuable asset where they are. The more effort it takes us to convince them to consider and pursue *our* opportunity, the better and more motivated they will be to work as hard and loyally for us as they did for the company we lured them from.

I would put to you that in this troubled economy, the passive candidate may not be the most desirable candidate right now.

First off, many people are very cautious about making any changes right now. Security is a huge draw. I would say that the Herculean effort it may take to pry that candidate from his/her current position might far outweigh the eventual perceived success in securing an acceptance from him/her.

Second, if you are working for a company that provides relocation, you may find that the cost of providing relocation is much higher than in previous eras. With the housing market the way it is, many established homeowners would take huge hits in equity by trying to sell their homes and move. It is also worth noting that most of the relatively healthy economies in the US right now are in areas with a much higher cost of living than the areas people may be willing to abandon.

On a third note, I would posit that the reasons certain employees have retained their positions during layoffs may be less about what a stellar job they are doing than from necessity. They may not know that or see it that way, but from an HR standpoint, if a business is going to continue to move forward and hope to weather the economic crisis we are facing, there needs to be at least some sort of skeleton crew. Let's face it, HR folks are going to pick the people that cost the least or are vital to the success of the business. In my experience, the "rock stars" aren't necessarily the folks that are so essential to success that they are the only person with the skills or legacy knowledge to keep the project up and running AND they also tend to be the folks that are the most highly compensated, be it bonuses or salary.

Finally, while "low hanging fruit" may be scorned in general for recruiting purposes, I've seen some darn good resumes on Monster lately. Some of them are unemployed, but a large portion of them are *worried* about job security. They are no longer passive candidates, but they are trying to put themselves in a better position. Maybe they are reading the writing on the wall, maybe they are taking advantage of the fact that only fairly successful businesses are hiring right now. A fair number of the resumes I have seen are from foreign nationals with H1-B's that would need to be ported. In my opinion, that makes them better investments in the long run. They have more to lose if they aren't dependable and steady performers, and they are obviously employable if they have been consulting or working for other US employers. The H1-B process itself can be said to (arguably) act as a skill screening process.

So, I ask you, is the passive candidate now necessarily the *best* candidate to pursue?

Flash-back to my sorority days

Kristen Fife — Fri, 30 May 2008 15:01:18 -0400

How, you may ask, am I going to tie my collegiate Greek experience with recruiting? Well, my friend, with two small words: "rush party".

I'm involved in planning a recruiting event with one of my teams, and we are discussing the format that has worked well in the recent past. As the other event planners are going over the event, I'm struck by the realization: Oh, my, gosh, it's a RUSH PARTY.

Now, for those of you that lacked the Greek experience or scoff at it and considered yourself a "Gamma Delta Iota" (otherwise known as "Go- Da*ned Independent") let me tell you that I learned valuable skills as a member of the Greek community, I have made lasting friendships that are still alive today, and I now am giving back to Sigma Kappa by volunteering my time at my local chapter house by helping on resume workshop and career panels for the young women getting ready to graduate and enter the workforce. My alma mater, Miami University, was (and still is) a fairly heavily Greek campus, also being the alpha (or founding) chapter for a number of the fraternities. When I refer to a rush party, I'm talking about the process whereby new members are recruited for each organization. Each Greek organization has a goal, or number of new members, it is hoping to pledge. The panhellenic council and the leadership team of each organization works on planning the parties. Usually there are a large number of incoming freshman (and sometimes sophomores) looking to join the Greek system. Often family members will have what are called "legacy" candidates (think of them as the equivalent of employee referrals). Each Greek chapter then hosts a series of "parties" where the interested candidates get a chance to talk to members of the chapter, and after each party, the candidate decides on a set number of organizations s/he would like to return to for the next round. Each round gets longer, with first meetings being anywhere from a short chunk of time (15+ minutes) onward, depending on the logistical needs of the school (number of chapters, number of rushees). From my first rush season, I remember we had our first set of parties was 20 minutes for a full day. Then the next round was 45, then 90, then 2 hours. Each set of parties was smaller because the rush candidates and the chapters were going through an elimination process to try and match up interests.

We had training in conversation topics, learning to evaluate a person based on how they presented themselves (verbally and non-verbally), mnemonic exercises to remember the young women so that at the end of each party we could "take notes" and compare them with the other women that spoke to them. We were grouped together in a carefully coreographed entry-exit strategy so that a maximum number of women had a chance to speak to each candidate without her feeling overwhelmed.

Returning to the recruiting event in planning, we were discussing the exact same things. Who should be available for the candidates to speak with, how many people and for how long, best ways to remember key facts about each candidate to compare notes later. Let's face it, as recruiters we are all looking to make the best hires for our clients. It needs to be a match of technical skills, cultural fit, and a genuine synchronicity between the candidate and the members of the team. There are more commonalities than disparities between Rushing and Recruiting.

It would be an interesting study to find out if Greek alumnae make better interviewers overall, and how many of them move into recruiting.

Is There Anything New Under The Sun in Recruiting?

Kristen Fife — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:27:21 -0400

Most corporate recruiters (and some agencies, I'm sure) get bombarded with "new", "innovative", "money-saving" recruiting products and services. I've looked at a few lately, and seen some innovations so I'm going to examine a few of them.

I recently tried BountyJobs.
https://www.bountyjobs.com/

Basically, it is an online recruiting marketplace connecting corporate recruiters with agencies/independent recruiters. The nice thing about it is that it allows corporate recruiters to interact with agencies to fill positions without having to put a contract in place, and to set the direct placement % you are willing to pay. It works on all positions from low to executive. I gave it a shot on a couple of positions we had open and was very pleased with the results. Some of the things I liked about it:

-Serves all of North America (Canada as well as US)
-You pay BountyJobs, they hold fees in escrow for you with a money-back guarantee
-Recruiters submit "bounties" on jobs you have listed. Easy interface to accept or deny the bounty
-Profiles that you can decline or accept
-Communication can take place completely online

This is most decidedly an advantage for corporate recruiters. So I'd say, yes, giving an "auction" business model to recruiting is positive, and innovative step forward.

NotchUp
http://notchup.com/?q=i

OK, this has got to be the most perplexing stab at a "new" recruiting business model I've ever heard of. Companies *pay* candidates to interview? Are you serious? Their FAQ section gives some interesting statistics, but I wonder where they truly *got* them?

Here's an interesting read about this bizarre offering.

http://www.cheezhead.com/xtra/2008/01/29/more-thoughts-on-notch-up/

My thoughts? Yeah, not so much for me. It really makes no sense as a business model to *me*.

theLadders
http://theladders.com

OK, when the Ladders first came out a few years ago, it was actually an interesting business model. Basically the premise was that job seekers pay for job postings from employers, and employers could post their $100K plus jobs for free. I actually got some great candidates from the Ladders.

And then...

At the end of 2007 the Ladders changed their business model (probably due to lack of funding). I had signed up for a free trial when I commenced my new position, and at the end of it the sales rep gave me a really *hard* sales pitch. The company had started charging companies for job postings, and it was a hefty amount. At this time, it was for unlimited postings for a year. Now, here's the problem with this.

1) The sales pitch was "sign up in the next 48 hours and we'll give you this hefty discount but only if you sign up during this limited time offer period." Not so enticing.

2) Not all of the jobs I have are over $100K.

3) Their subscription fee has no provisions for single postings.

4) Not built into my recruiting budget for the year.

And to me, the really duplicitous part of the business? They are still charging applicants those fees to have these jobs sent to them. Yeah. It's now just one more job board, the only differentiator is that you know the salaries will start at $100K. I queried my local recruiting community when I got the hard line sales pitch and found that they'd done the same thing and that the subscription amounts and "trial period" varied *vastly* from company to company.

Final analysis: leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth.

Honorable Mention for creativity:

DevSelect Recruiting

This is a local recruiting agency, and I'm impresssed with something they have done which takes advantage of the local recruiting economy. Here in the Seattle area, one of the biggest employers is Microsoft. They employ a *lot* of contractors (in fact, yours truly has made a career out of it, you might say.)

Now, due to a nasty co-employment lawsuit MS found themselves in a few years ago, they have some very strict guidelines for contractors. As a contractor through a temp agency, I have 12 months that I can work at MS. I could do one year in one group, or several smaller contracts within that year. But at the end of that twelve months, I am required to take my "100 Day Break". This is exactly what it sounds like. I cannot work in any capacity at MS for that 100 days (unless I'm hired full time; no limitations on that.) During that 100 day break I have been known to: travel, get another job, go on unemployment, take classes, etc. In fact, it was after my last contract ended that I started at my most recent employer.

There is a whole local lexicon about the whole MS Contracting lifestyle. While on campus during your contract, your email alias starts with "a-". So, my email alias has in the past been "a-kfife @ microsoft.com". It's also been a couple of variations on that.

So, at any given time there are a pretty significant number of contractors on their 100-day break. DevSelect has come up with a program to work with them. I asked Bob for a summary for this blog and hey, it's a free plug:

?What if ? you knew precisely when Microsoft?s top ?ay-dash? contractors were coming off contract? And (because you?re special), you could ?cherry pick? people from the list to fill positions at your company before the rest of Seattle knew they were available? Program, product and release managers, on-line marketing specialists; development & test; even internal IT lab managers and tech support.

You should know about DevSelect?s new experiment ? code-named ?Preview?.

DevSelect (http://www.devselect.com) has been in the NW contract staffing and recruiting business since 1999 -- usually associated with high tech and telecom. In October, DevSelect began compiling a list of Microsoft contractors who were nearing their ?break in service? dates and quietly looking for their next assignment. In January, DevSelect began publishing the list ? with weekly updates - to a small number of favored clients. The weekly updates are free ? DevSelect makes its money when clients contract or hire someone through the program.

Interested? Bob Waite ? 206.262.1300?

So, bottom line? There really *isn't* that much new under the sun. Different ways of doing the same old same old. As search technology is refined, I'm sure there will be more expensive tools and techniques hitting the airwaves.

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

Kristen Fife — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:46:07 -0400

I've been pondering the myriad industry pieces of knowledge needed in a recruiter. Account management, marketing, sales, industry analyst, legal, human resources. Our profession truly does touch on many aspects of any given business model.

In the last five years or so, I have seen a proliferation of recruiting and HR titles, some of which seem redundant to me, and some which are way too broad. So I posed a couple of questions on LinkedIn Q & A just to see what people had to say, and the responses were very interesting. The first was generically about "titles". Let's face it, people constantly try and re-invent not only themselves but their industry as well. Consider it a marketing paradigm. In recruiting, I've seen a proliferation of titles delineating different functions that have evolved. Sourcer, Internet Recruiter, Staffing Consultant, Staffing Partner, Talent Acquisition Specialist, Sourcing Specialist, Name Generator, Recruiting/Staffing Researcher.

The overall response I got was that many people are confused about some of the delineations. For example, is a "Talent Acquisition" professional any different than a "recruiter"? How is a "Staffing Partner" different than a "Staffing Consultant"? Is a "Name Generator" closer to a "Sourcer" or a "Researcher"? Does "Acquisition" bring to mind the image of forcefully "getting" something through the leverage of greater resources, as in mergers and acquisitions"? Is this a good or a negative connotation? I can see both sides of this. In today's market we have a much greater number of tools at our recruiting disposal, by virtue of the fact that technology has allowed us to expand into different mediums to identify and pursue talent. I see that there truly is an advantage to those entities with greater resources, be they money or personnel. I also believe the good recruiter knows how to leverage his or her resources, whether great or small, to the best of their ability. Even taking into account the bedrock of great recruiting, which is networking, fewer resources mean fewer ways of connecting. Email, phone, instant messaging, social networking sites, face to face meetings all have different levels of involvement. If you work for a company with a strict policy on activities such as instant messaging and internet usage, you may be crippling your effectiveness and putting yourself that much further behind the rest of your competition.

If we break up the recruiting lifecycle into two distinct parts, sourcing and closing, we can start to see a better delineation between some of the myriad titles and the views implicit within this. My belief is that most professionals know what a "full lifecycle" recruiter does...sourcing, account management, negotiation, closing. Simplified, perhaps, but no less accurate. We interface with our managers to define the jobs; we find the candidates, screen, interview and pre-close them, then negotiate. "Recruiter" has taken on some new identifiers in the last few years, but I think we all recognize the basics of the responsibilities.

Which brings us to the interesting proliferation of the "sourcing" role. In the last five to ten years, I've seen a marked upswing in the division between the sourcing and closing roles. I started my own career in an executive research role, finding that I have a talent for truly finding obscure tidbits such as contact information, articles, building out org charts, etc. But having this talent and even experience utilizing it doesn't do me much good without "full lifecycle" recruiting. It is interesting that the Sourcing role is either perceived as a strategic role, with an emphasis on passive candidate generation OR as a junior role. Those who considered sourcing to be strategic understand that it involves a talent that not all recruiters have, but it does require an understanding (preferably through experience) with the full recruiting lifecycle. The difference between sourcing being a junior or more senior role seems to lie within the context of candidate contact. If a sourcing recruiter actually reaches out to a candidate, then they are a "recruiter". If they just scour job boards, resume databases, LinkedIn etc for names to pass off to "senior recruiters" then this is the more junior role, and the comments I received indicated that this skill is perceived as being much easier to teach than account management and closing.

I find this mindset disturbing in some respects. Recruiting is a *people* and *sales* business. Understanding your industry niche/s is probably the most important part, to me, of recruiting. Understanding the profile/s you are looking for indicates to me that you are learning to communicate with your client, the hiring manager. Shadowing account reps or other recruiters to understand what they are looking for by way of requisition reviews and phone screens with potential candidates seems a much better training activity than just sitting someone down with a list of keywords to search on. Yes, it's important, but I feel that only through understanding the position requirements and the screening parameters and how the two interrelate, can someone learn to become a "recruiter".

The one phrase that popped up consistently was "can't we get along?" Why is there even any sort of rivalry? Sourcing is just as important as closing and account management. If an organization has the resources to have this function separated out, then it should be given *just as much* respect and weight as the "closers". To me, it seems that finding a passive candidate and engaging them to consider a new opportunity can be more difficult than closing a candidate who has been through a full interview loop.

We, as recruiters and staffing managers, need to give serious weight to all the roles that encompass this industry we call "recruiting", and that such skills should be acknowledged, respected, and compensated fairly.

Something new, please

Kristen Fife — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:25:51 -0400

How do you, as a recruiter, define "thinking outside the box" in the recruiting realm? In my recent rounds of interviews, most of the questions were pretty stock and I could answer many of them "in my sleep", as it were.

Tell me about your most difficult hire. Tell me about the worst hiring manager you have had; why was s/he the worst and what did you do about it? Whiteboard diagram for me: how you would source for xyz position; the recruiting lifecycle; a search string for abc position. What ATS have you used? Tell me about a time you forged a particularly good relationship with a hiring manager? Why do you like recruiting? What's the most creative sourcing strategy you have ever implemented, and what were the results? What is your hire:requisition ratio?

Just once I'd like to see corporate hiring recruiters show *me* that they are on top of the industy. I'd like to see questions like: What is your opinion on video resumes? Have you used Facebook or SecondLife for recruiting, and what were the results? Have you thought about using SMS/cell technology to tap into the Y generation?

I recently attended a symposium called "Hire America's Heroes". It was aimed at corporate recruiters, trying to educate them on the value veterans can bring to the corporate world, and ways to overcome stereotypes. I was a "Table Captain", which meant facilitating conversation between the attendees seated at our table. I was sitting next to a young army professional who is in a platoon that helps "wounded warriors", those that have been wounded in combat and are transitioning back to civilian life. Part of this process involves a lengthy medical evaluation (both physical and mental), and there are specific active duty soldiers that help with the process. I asked him his title and what he does. He rattled off some military title designation, then proceeded to tell me that he is the liaison for the various stakeholders (care providers, the soldier in transition and his family, administrative personnel, etc). I looked at him and said, "Oh, a lot of project management and coordination? Getting all the various pieces of the process to work together and then being accountable for getting it back on track if it isn't working?" He was a bit flabbergasted. "Yes, is that how I would message it for the civilian world?" This brief interaction was one of the key reasons for the entire event, trying to bridge the gap for both parties.

The symposium got me thinking about a lot of things, not just recruiting veterans. The presenters were all very interesting and had a lot of expertise to bring to the table in various ways. Too soon to tell if it's outside the "box" but maybe I can translate my ideas that way.

Is Sourcing Detracting From Your Recruiting Brand?

Kristen Fife — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:58:38 -0400

I'm getting ready to finish my current one year contract, and thus I've started the process of finding my next opportunity. To that end, I put my resume on Monster and Dice, to see if I find any interesting leads. Now, I put it up there on Confidential, for the simple fact that I have had too many examples of account managers from agencies trying to contact me to try new client inroads.

My Monster title is "Talent Acquisition", and the *first* line (Objective, if you will) is: "Seeking contract or full-time *corporate* senior recruiting opportunities in the Seattle/Redmond WA, Vancouver/Victoria BC, QC, or Toronto/Ottawa ON areas only at this time." I think these two "labels" should spell out pretty clearly what I'm looking for. (So if you have an opportunity that fits this model, by all means contact me. I'll be unavailable between Oct 5-23 on vacation.) For most of the last four years, I have been a technical recruiter and as such I have listed some of the technologies I have recruited for and positions.

What tends to happen is that I get email from random scattershot sourcing that xyz company or agency has done, targeting me as a Software Engineer, or Project Manager, or whatnot. What this tells me is that whomever is doing the sourcing is just pulling up a keyword search and then sending a gazillion emails out to all the keyword search results coming back as "high" (specifically on Monster.)

Now, I know that we are in a tight recruiting economy, but what does it say to potential candidates, or in my case perhaps a potential client or employee, about how you go about targeting talent? Granted, the resumes on job board are "low hanging fruit", active or at the very least warm passive candidates.

Here's how I do my sourcing on Monster. Yes, I run a keyword search. But when I pull up 1600 resumes, I'm a bit selective about whom I contact. If profiles look interesting to me, I forward them to myself in email. Once I've got a decent pipe, I then comb through those email resumes in my email to target who truly fits the profile/s I'm sourcing for.

I'll admit that it takes more time, but it isn't a *major* time drain. Yes, I have been blessed to work for companies with generous relocation plans, so I can look nationally, but I do respect someone who puts that they are only interested in very specific cities (IE they list three TX cities even though they say 'yes' to relocation).

I feel that although I tend to put a bit more time into my sourcing efforts and that it may slow me down in the short run, it really pays off in candidates' impressions of me and my representation of the company I'm branding and selling. I'm passionate about the candidate experience, and for me that starts with the first contact someone receives through the entire interview process.

What personality type makes a good recruiter?

Kristen Fife — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:48:10 -0400

I have been pondering this question lately. Recruiting is a very diverse industry, with everything from free-wheeling high performance "mavericks" to low key HR generalists that act as the recruiter for their small organization. Recently I have been observing someone enter to the world of corporate recruiting coming from a vastly different background. This person is taking over an internal client organization from someone with a much different recruiting style. I think about the best recruiters I know, and the commonalities they have that make them successful, both at the agency and corporate level.

I did a stint as an agency recruiter, and wasn't very thrilled with the experience, but it *did* teach me about fast turn-around and high volume recruiting. When I went into the corporate arena, I saw non-agency experienced corporate recruiters buckling under what I considered to be a relatively light workload. I truly believe that an agency is a great training ground and that almost any good recruiter should have some experience in that respect. That being said, what are the personality traits that make a good recruiter?

Obviously, people skills. Dealing with both candidates and hiring managers. Attention to detail and being able to handle multiple demands at once. The ability to prioritize and move in a changeable environment.

So then we get to process. Agency recruiting, be it either contract or direct placement, has a much different set of needs than corporate recruiting. Often that includes a sales or business development aspect to it, which isn't a factor in corporate recruiting. So along with generating new business, there is the need for quick turn around and finding candidates that are going to fit the general position profile. I think even with high-end clients it's less about a "good fit" than a "generally good fit" (with the exception of the Executive Search). Does this person, on paper, meet the basic requirements as laid out in the job description? This is where the high volume component comes in. Learning to read resumes quickly, define in general terms what the client seems to be looking for, getting resumes in front of the hiring manager. In my agency days, the phrases were "turn and burn" and "Give me seventy" (percent), screen in versus screen out. For me, this mentality was not a good fit, because I'm more interested in getting quality over quantity in front of a hiring manager. I worked hard with my managers to understand what they were looking for, and I tried to make sure that my candidates felt that they were going into a job interview for a job they really wanted and would excel at, rather than a warm body to fill a short-term contract need. I also didn't do well in the highly competitive environment where recruiters "hoarded" their candidates. I'm much more about doing what's best overall rather than what's best for *me*. There were some great recruiters that thrived in that environment, and are still there today. But the lesson I learned for myself is that it's much more important for me to feel as if I can do a good job for my two clients - the candidate and the hiring manager.

Being a contractor myself, I've been sent on interviews by agencies that have no idea what the actual job is, or they don't give me the right job description, or even where eveyrone on the interview loop has a different idea of the role they want me to fill. (My favorite is the one where I met with five people and each one believed I would be a 50% of the time resource for them each...yeah, the math doesn't compute.) This particular experience has taught me invaluable lessons as a candidate that I can apply as a recruiter. I hope that empathy makes me a better recruiter in the end.

Can promotion to management be career suicide?

Kristen Fife — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:58:39 -0400

I asked this question of several forums. LinkedIn, HRPN, AskLiz, Digital Eve. Specifically, can promoting a stellar IC to a management role be suicide for an employee? I wasn't asking for myself or anyone I know, but I have seen far too many examples of colleagues or former candidates of mine that have been promoted to people management positions and it has basically destroyed an otherwise promising career.

So often I think that companies use promotion as a "reward", when in essence the employee is not cut out for management.

The answer is that most everyone agrees, and that very few companies, large or otherwise, have programs in place to actually train and allow valuable performers to "give it a try."

There are a few exceptions that people mentioned, but the majority agreed that it can be suicide. One woman, who is a software architect, said that she has been pushed to go into management as a figurehead. "See, we have women in senior technical leadership roles." Her current employer is going that way and she said if they don't leave off it will be time for her to start looking for a new job.

When I ask a candidate their career goals, there is a major difference between being a "strategic leader" and being in "managment". I know one woman that is an amazing Senior Marketing project managers, but she is one of the most horrible managers I have ever worked with.

As the first link in the human resources chain, what is our responsibility, as recruiters, in this matter?

<a href="http://technorati.com/claim/uepj98au78" rel="me">Technorati Profile</a>

The "Red-Headed Stepchild"

Kristen Fife — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:54:33 -0400

How many times have you heard that Recruiting isn't *really* an HR function? As a recruiter, do you feel that you should be separate from your corporate HR department? How many times have you heard a disgruntled employee disparage Human Resources but exclude recruiting from their diatribes? Why the distinction?

As a recruiter, I deal with talent acquisition, and believe that I am the very first link in the Human Resources chain. Perhaps it is because recruiters are seen to have at least slightly more interest and a stake in making sure that the candidate/potential employee is being "taken care of", that their interests are of immediate concern as much as the hiring team.

How many times as a recruiter do you hear from a candidate you recruited a few years ago that has a problem, and they went to HR and were frustrated with the lack of resolution? Or maybe not even a former candidate, but a co-worker or former co-worker that is in the same position, and hopes that somehow you can give them an answer to the "Why?" behind HR's actions, or perhaps even to see if you can help them make the right contact.

I think that part of the perception of Recruiting as a profession as being not *quite* a part of HR has to do with the fact that we straddle both the internal and external business line. We work with our internal business partners, but we often also interact with other vendors and even other local recruiters, so we are more well-connected than some of our internally-focused colleagues. Because of that perception, I think that sometimes HR sees us as being less committed to the internal "bottom line". I would dare say in some instances there may be underlying professional resentment as well. We have the professional "power" to say "no" to our internal business partners, and to advise them not only on issues such as internal equity, but also in local and national compensation trends.

But with this greater flexibility comes greater responsibility to know the broader picture. We need to understand not only our internal policies, but also the ramifications of our business practices to the external world. We are more responsible for the outward-facing image our company presents to the world, and if we work in a large corporate setting, we need to understand how different business units approach not only recruiting, but also retention, training and development, forecasting etc. We need to know legal issues not only in hiring, but in interviewing; let's not even *mention* OFCCP. I think that BECAUSE we need to be aware of these issues in *addition* to our regular recruiting functions, this makes us very much a part of the "human resources" organization. I believe that in an ideal world, Recruiters would not see their HR counterparts as only doing what's best for the company and neglecting the individual, and that HR would understand that recruiters are *quite* aware of the fact that we consider the impact our hires will make on the company as a whole, and that we are not just out to fill the req.