Job Headhunters And Recruiters
What is a "headhunter" or "recruiter"?
A headhunter is actually a professional placement specialist or executive recruiter. What they do is they get a request, typically from a client company, and the company will say, "We're looking for an executive or a professional who can do XYZ. Please help us find this individual." The executive recruiter at that point will either go into their database of candidates and/or they will actually recruit or headhunt at other companies to find the most appropriate individual or individuals they can introduce to their client company, and hopefully get them placed.
How does a headhunter or recruiter get paid?
Typically a headhunting company will be paid by the client company, and that's always the way that you want to go if you're an applicant. So if you are thinking of using an executive recruiter or headhunting firm to help you with your job hunt, be sure to ask them, "Are you employer paid or are you applicant paid?" And the most reputable headhunting firms are going to be company paid.
What are guidelines for working with a headhunter or recruiter?
With job headhunters and recruiters, the most important thing to remember about working with a headhunter is that they are in the business of sales. Headhunters make their money by every placement that they make. Most reputable executive recruiting companies are the ones who have good relationships with high quality client companies and who are looking to recruit top level people. Therefore it's very, very important when you're interviewing with those types of companies to find out what their track record is and what types of companies they typically work with. Do they have areas of specialization that they place? It is very important because obviously if you're in accounting, you don't want to be recruited to be working with an executive recruiting company who places people in the healthcare field. So you must ask recruiters a lot of questions.
What are guidelines for working with a headhunter or recruiter?
A good head-hunter or executive recruiter is going to spend the time to really get to know you and what your needs, goals and objectives are; not just for the short term, but also for your long term career plans. The last thing that an executive recruiter wants to do is place a candidate with the client company (remember that the client company is the one paying the bill) and then have one or both parties be unhappy after a few months. They are really looking for that long term win-win relationship, between the candidate and the client company. So, if you paint a very honest picture for the recruiter you're working with, he or she can then take that picture of you to the client company and that's going to ensure that long term success for you.
How do I find a headhunter?
With job headhunters and recruiters, the best way to find a really good headhunter is through referral. Find some other people who have worked with a headhunter and get the name of the specific recruiter that they have worked with. Additionally, you can also call around to other employment agencies and find out what types of relationships they might have with executive recruiters. Certainly you can go to the internet but you might not always get an honest picture of who this company is going to be, so your best bet is to contact recruiters armed with a lot of questions. And be sure that those recruiters answer your questions to your satisfaction.
-------------------------------------
Showing posts with label why recruiter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label why recruiter. Show all posts
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Know Why Recruiters Are Worth What They Charge !!
>>>
“When I need a heart by-pass, rest assured that I won’t select my surgeon on the basis of what he charges.”
That’s what an ailing executive recently opined when he was informed by his doctor about his arterial blockage problems.
Why then are corporate executives so tightfisted when dealing with what is so commonly thought of as the “heartbeat” of their companies . . . top-talent?
Companies think very little about paying the often excessive fees charged by their outside accounting and legal firms . . . or even to the gaggle of consultants who promise cost-cutting and streamlining miracles in other areas of operations.
Yet, when faced with brain drains, talent deficiencies or the need to replace one employee with a better one, their thoughts too often turn to parsimony. This K-mart mentality belies and contradicts their stated objectives to “hire the best,” especially at pecking order levels below the “big picture” executive suite inhabitants.
Of course recruiting fees can vary from firm to firm but, when they do, you will almost always find that those on the low side are sure to exclude some very key ingredients of the process, all of which are vital to providing the indispensable services necessary to satisfy the needs of the employer.
So why are recruiters worth what they charge? Just a few of the often unspoken reasons are:
Expertise - Nobody knows the employment marketplace better than a professional recruiter . . . nobody! In-house human resourcers, no matter how effective, view the marketplace through an imperfect or misrepresentative prism and tunnel vision is their occupational hazard.
Just as physicians are cautioned against treating members of their own families, so too is it folly for an in-house H/R professional to believe that they have an undistorted and unbiased picture of the employment landscape. They are vulnerable to the pressures of internal politics and cultural dimensions which do not hinder the outsider.
Street-smart recruiters already know the neighborhood, including the unlisted addresses so often overlooked by the insiders.
Cast a wider net - A professional fisherman will always have more to show than a weekend angler. Recruiters are in the marketplace day in and day out. They know the unfished coves, reefs and inlets that are unknown to others. The job-hunter bookshelves are filled with lore about the “hidden job market.” The same holds true for professional recruiters who have a detailed roadmap to the hidden talent sources which will never be accessed by newspaper ads, alumni associations, applicant databases, job boards or any of the other more familiar sources of people.
There are occasional pearls through these sources (and someone inevitably wins the Publisher’s Clearinghouse Sweepstakes too) but you have to shuck an awful lot of smelly oysters to find them. Recruiters only give you oysters proven to contain pearls. Your only job is to determine which pearl is the best.
Want to catch what you’re fishing for? Hire a guide!
Cost - There is a misconception among employers that the cost of a hire equals the cost of the ads or Internet postings run to attract the person hired. Nothing could be further from reality.
Try adding these to the true cost and you’ll see just how cost effective an outside recruiter can be:
Salaries and benefits of the employment/recruiting staffs plus those of the line managers involved in the hiring activity (who are not productive in their normal job pursuits when they’re out recruiting); travel, lodging and entertainment expenses of in-house recruiters; source development costs; overhead expenses including but not limited to telephone, office space, postage, PR literature, applicant database maintenance, reference checking, clerical costs to correspond with the hundreds of unqualified respondents, etc.
Unbiased third party input - Contrary to what some believe, recruiters don’t try to put square pegs into round holes. A recruiter’s stock-in-trade is their integrity and their reputation for finding someone better than a company could have found for themselves.
For a mid to senior-level executive, the average recruiter may develop a “long list” of a hundred or more possibilities. Each must be called and evaluated against the position specifications as well as the personality “fit” with the company and the people with whom they will ultimately work. Once this is winnowed down to the “short list,” an even more intensive interviewing process begins to narrow the search to a panel of finalists for review by the client.
This process is not, as some believe, simply romping through the file cabinets, harvesting from the Monster lookalikes or putting the job opening out to others on the recruiter’s network with crossed fingers that someone good will show up.
It is highly unlikely that a professional recruiter will be plowing new ground with your opening. They deal within spheres of influence far more familiar with your needs than any internal recruiter and, more often than not, view the finalists as people who are competent to solve client problems rather than just fill an open slot in the organizational chart.
Because they want to do business with you again and again, they are looking for (and challenging you to excellence by hiring) the “truly exceptional” rather than the “just satisfactory” so often settled for by in-house hirers.
Confidentiality - Advertising or otherwise publicly proclaiming an opening, aside from its cost and demonstrated ineffectiveness for sensitive senior level openings, often creates anxiety and apprehension among the advertiser’s current employees who wonder why they aren’t being considered or worry about newcomer transition problems. Just as often it alerts competitors to a current weakness or void within the company.
Speed - The recruiting process is always faster through a search professional who is continually tapped into the talent marketplace than one having to start the process from scratch. For every day that a key opening remains unfilled, a company’s other employees must grudgingly do double duty. And this doesn’t factor in the profit opportunities or competitive advantages lost to a company because a position remains unfilled or is done on a part-time basis by others less qualified.
Post-Hire Downtime - Not only is speed an essential part of the professional recruiter’s process, the ability to locate a person who can immediately “hit the ground running” with a minimum of “ramp-up time” saves time after the hire. All too often, a hire selected through less effective sources offering a smaller talent pool requires several months of expensive training and orientation.
Reality - Professional recruiters often recognize and have a duty to inform clients that they may be mistaken as to the type of person sought, the salary required to attract them or the possibilities that the solution might just lie in areas outside the traditional target industries . . . something an internal recruiter is politically disinclined to do. Too many hirers fail to understand that a professional recruiter’s primary function is not necessary to fill a slot but to provide the right candidate to solve a problem.
Negotiation - As Master negotiator Herb Cohen had says that, “negotiation is the analysis of information, time and power to affect behavior . . . the meeting of needs (yours and others’) to make things happen the way you want them to.” As a buffer and informed intermediary, the professional recruiter is better able to blend the needs and wants of both parties to arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement without the polarizing roadblocks which too frequently materialize in face-to-face dealings.
Prioritizing company resources - It is often amazing to see how much of a company’s revenues are squandered on non-productive perks for existing high-level employees while they penny-pinch on what is every company’s lifeblood . . . talent acquisition.
Club memberships and the like may be fine, but no one with an IQ higher than Forrest Gump’s believes that these expenditures substantially contribute to a company’s profit margin. But one well-placed employee can be the cause of a company’s profits skyrocketing. And the fee for having hired these people pales to insignificance when compared to the contributions they make to the bottom line.
The next time you think a recruiter’s fees are too high, put them in the proper perspective before asking for that Blue Light special or spinning your wheels thrashing about trying to fill vital openings with less effective (but not necessarily less expensive) pedestrian methods. Savvy executives learned long ago that the fee paid to a recruiter is a shrewd strategic investment, not an extraneous expense. They also know that the “best” is far different from the “best available.”
Once you have a handle on these ?closes’ you’ll have a much better chance of turning a prospect into a paying client.
Courtesy: Fordyce Letter
I find this wonderful article (by Paul Hawkinson) and thought to share it with u all.
Thanks!!!
“When I need a heart by-pass, rest assured that I won’t select my surgeon on the basis of what he charges.”
That’s what an ailing executive recently opined when he was informed by his doctor about his arterial blockage problems.
Why then are corporate executives so tightfisted when dealing with what is so commonly thought of as the “heartbeat” of their companies . . . top-talent?
Companies think very little about paying the often excessive fees charged by their outside accounting and legal firms . . . or even to the gaggle of consultants who promise cost-cutting and streamlining miracles in other areas of operations.
Yet, when faced with brain drains, talent deficiencies or the need to replace one employee with a better one, their thoughts too often turn to parsimony. This K-mart mentality belies and contradicts their stated objectives to “hire the best,” especially at pecking order levels below the “big picture” executive suite inhabitants.
Of course recruiting fees can vary from firm to firm but, when they do, you will almost always find that those on the low side are sure to exclude some very key ingredients of the process, all of which are vital to providing the indispensable services necessary to satisfy the needs of the employer.
So why are recruiters worth what they charge? Just a few of the often unspoken reasons are:
Expertise - Nobody knows the employment marketplace better than a professional recruiter . . . nobody! In-house human resourcers, no matter how effective, view the marketplace through an imperfect or misrepresentative prism and tunnel vision is their occupational hazard.
Just as physicians are cautioned against treating members of their own families, so too is it folly for an in-house H/R professional to believe that they have an undistorted and unbiased picture of the employment landscape. They are vulnerable to the pressures of internal politics and cultural dimensions which do not hinder the outsider.
Street-smart recruiters already know the neighborhood, including the unlisted addresses so often overlooked by the insiders.
Cast a wider net - A professional fisherman will always have more to show than a weekend angler. Recruiters are in the marketplace day in and day out. They know the unfished coves, reefs and inlets that are unknown to others. The job-hunter bookshelves are filled with lore about the “hidden job market.” The same holds true for professional recruiters who have a detailed roadmap to the hidden talent sources which will never be accessed by newspaper ads, alumni associations, applicant databases, job boards or any of the other more familiar sources of people.
There are occasional pearls through these sources (and someone inevitably wins the Publisher’s Clearinghouse Sweepstakes too) but you have to shuck an awful lot of smelly oysters to find them. Recruiters only give you oysters proven to contain pearls. Your only job is to determine which pearl is the best.
Want to catch what you’re fishing for? Hire a guide!
Cost - There is a misconception among employers that the cost of a hire equals the cost of the ads or Internet postings run to attract the person hired. Nothing could be further from reality.
Try adding these to the true cost and you’ll see just how cost effective an outside recruiter can be:
Salaries and benefits of the employment/recruiting staffs plus those of the line managers involved in the hiring activity (who are not productive in their normal job pursuits when they’re out recruiting); travel, lodging and entertainment expenses of in-house recruiters; source development costs; overhead expenses including but not limited to telephone, office space, postage, PR literature, applicant database maintenance, reference checking, clerical costs to correspond with the hundreds of unqualified respondents, etc.
Unbiased third party input - Contrary to what some believe, recruiters don’t try to put square pegs into round holes. A recruiter’s stock-in-trade is their integrity and their reputation for finding someone better than a company could have found for themselves.
For a mid to senior-level executive, the average recruiter may develop a “long list” of a hundred or more possibilities. Each must be called and evaluated against the position specifications as well as the personality “fit” with the company and the people with whom they will ultimately work. Once this is winnowed down to the “short list,” an even more intensive interviewing process begins to narrow the search to a panel of finalists for review by the client.
This process is not, as some believe, simply romping through the file cabinets, harvesting from the Monster lookalikes or putting the job opening out to others on the recruiter’s network with crossed fingers that someone good will show up.
It is highly unlikely that a professional recruiter will be plowing new ground with your opening. They deal within spheres of influence far more familiar with your needs than any internal recruiter and, more often than not, view the finalists as people who are competent to solve client problems rather than just fill an open slot in the organizational chart.
Because they want to do business with you again and again, they are looking for (and challenging you to excellence by hiring) the “truly exceptional” rather than the “just satisfactory” so often settled for by in-house hirers.
Confidentiality - Advertising or otherwise publicly proclaiming an opening, aside from its cost and demonstrated ineffectiveness for sensitive senior level openings, often creates anxiety and apprehension among the advertiser’s current employees who wonder why they aren’t being considered or worry about newcomer transition problems. Just as often it alerts competitors to a current weakness or void within the company.
Speed - The recruiting process is always faster through a search professional who is continually tapped into the talent marketplace than one having to start the process from scratch. For every day that a key opening remains unfilled, a company’s other employees must grudgingly do double duty. And this doesn’t factor in the profit opportunities or competitive advantages lost to a company because a position remains unfilled or is done on a part-time basis by others less qualified.
Post-Hire Downtime - Not only is speed an essential part of the professional recruiter’s process, the ability to locate a person who can immediately “hit the ground running” with a minimum of “ramp-up time” saves time after the hire. All too often, a hire selected through less effective sources offering a smaller talent pool requires several months of expensive training and orientation.
Reality - Professional recruiters often recognize and have a duty to inform clients that they may be mistaken as to the type of person sought, the salary required to attract them or the possibilities that the solution might just lie in areas outside the traditional target industries . . . something an internal recruiter is politically disinclined to do. Too many hirers fail to understand that a professional recruiter’s primary function is not necessary to fill a slot but to provide the right candidate to solve a problem.
Negotiation - As Master negotiator Herb Cohen had says that, “negotiation is the analysis of information, time and power to affect behavior . . . the meeting of needs (yours and others’) to make things happen the way you want them to.” As a buffer and informed intermediary, the professional recruiter is better able to blend the needs and wants of both parties to arrive at a mutually beneficial arrangement without the polarizing roadblocks which too frequently materialize in face-to-face dealings.
Prioritizing company resources - It is often amazing to see how much of a company’s revenues are squandered on non-productive perks for existing high-level employees while they penny-pinch on what is every company’s lifeblood . . . talent acquisition.
Club memberships and the like may be fine, but no one with an IQ higher than Forrest Gump’s believes that these expenditures substantially contribute to a company’s profit margin. But one well-placed employee can be the cause of a company’s profits skyrocketing. And the fee for having hired these people pales to insignificance when compared to the contributions they make to the bottom line.
The next time you think a recruiter’s fees are too high, put them in the proper perspective before asking for that Blue Light special or spinning your wheels thrashing about trying to fill vital openings with less effective (but not necessarily less expensive) pedestrian methods. Savvy executives learned long ago that the fee paid to a recruiter is a shrewd strategic investment, not an extraneous expense. They also know that the “best” is far different from the “best available.”
Once you have a handle on these ?closes’ you’ll have a much better chance of turning a prospect into a paying client.
Courtesy: Fordyce Letter
I find this wonderful article (by Paul Hawkinson) and thought to share it with u all.
Thanks!!!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Existence of Recruitment Team in your Organization & their role..
Existence of Recruitment Team in your Organization
Introduction
What do you think is the actual role and responsibility of “Recruitment Team” in company? I my previous write-up titled “Roles for HR Professionals in New Economy, I have mentioned about various roles and responsibilities that a “Recruitment Team” can take-up. The key and main role of the Recruitment Team of any organization is “Sourcing” but even if they are not doing that and just working as a mediator between Various Departments and Recruitment Consultancy Firms/Agency … don’t you think they are not justifying their very existence in the system? Lets go in detail and find the solution.
Different resources available for sourcing
The following are the various resources available for corporate houses and organizations to get profiles for their requirements:
1) Advertisement
2) Employee References
3) Job Portals
4) Campus Hiring (including, hiring through different private institutes)
5) Recruitment Consultancies/Firms
6) Resumes‚posted on the website of the company
7) Direct Drop-ins
The last two are ill-managed resources. If managed properly‚these two resources can be very useful and effective. Among the above-mentioned sources “Recruitment Consultancies/firms” is the only source where you cannot, directly get in touch with the “prospective employees”.
I am not against “Recruitment Consultancies”‚I am in favour of them and I want to use them in a better manner. I want to use this resource for “Headhunting”. This gives rise to two more questions? What are different resources available with Consultancy Firms‚for sourcing and what is difference between Sourcing and Headhunting?
Different Resources available with “Recruitment Consultancy Firms” for sourcing Recruitment Consultancy Firms also use all the above-mentioned resources except “Campus Hiring” and “Employee Reference”. (Let me know if there is any other resource available to them). Then, why is it that you cannot tap the talent and they can? Probably, you are not aware of the market? Probably, you are not aware of the business?
What the “Recruitment Team” is actually doing?
First question, if the recruitment team of your company is the final authority to “Select” or “Reject” a candidate? In most of the cases‚your answer will be NOPE, they are not the final authority. That right has been vested on “The Departmental or The Functional Head”. If those Department and Functional heads selects anyone on their own‚without informing you‚you cannot do anything.
Now the second question‚you cannot take any decision (on selection or rejection)‚you cannot even source (just getting people from recruitment consultancy firms)‚then what are you doing in the company? Are you working as mediator or coordinator between “Consultancies” and “Functional Departments”? In such scenarios‚how can you justify the very existence to this “department” in the organization? I am not against “Recruitment Department”‚my question is if they are not doing the very basic and key function of their department-”Sourcing” , then what they are doing?
As soon as they get the requirement from any department or any division they just call their (their selected, short listed or favorite) consultants and place the requirement. I have seen‚in some cases they are not even able to explain to the consultants‚the Job Description‚Job Specifications and roles for the profile that they are looking for. It is an irony.
Solution and Conclusion
It is not my verdict and it is not my decision. It is your company and it is for you to pay. But, I suggest to “Corporate Heads” and “HR-Heads”‚either use your all resources minus recruitment firms‚efficiently or outsource your total “Recruitment Process” to an external agency. This will save a lot of Administrative and Operational Cost. What do you say?
Thanks to: Sanjeev Sharma for his contribution
Introduction
What do you think is the actual role and responsibility of “Recruitment Team” in company? I my previous write-up titled “Roles for HR Professionals in New Economy, I have mentioned about various roles and responsibilities that a “Recruitment Team” can take-up. The key and main role of the Recruitment Team of any organization is “Sourcing” but even if they are not doing that and just working as a mediator between Various Departments and Recruitment Consultancy Firms/Agency … don’t you think they are not justifying their very existence in the system? Lets go in detail and find the solution.
Different resources available for sourcing
The following are the various resources available for corporate houses and organizations to get profiles for their requirements:
1) Advertisement
2) Employee References
3) Job Portals
4) Campus Hiring (including, hiring through different private institutes)
5) Recruitment Consultancies/Firms
6) Resumes‚posted on the website of the company
7) Direct Drop-ins
The last two are ill-managed resources. If managed properly‚these two resources can be very useful and effective. Among the above-mentioned sources “Recruitment Consultancies/firms” is the only source where you cannot, directly get in touch with the “prospective employees”.
I am not against “Recruitment Consultancies”‚I am in favour of them and I want to use them in a better manner. I want to use this resource for “Headhunting”. This gives rise to two more questions? What are different resources available with Consultancy Firms‚for sourcing and what is difference between Sourcing and Headhunting?
Different Resources available with “Recruitment Consultancy Firms” for sourcing Recruitment Consultancy Firms also use all the above-mentioned resources except “Campus Hiring” and “Employee Reference”. (Let me know if there is any other resource available to them). Then, why is it that you cannot tap the talent and they can? Probably, you are not aware of the market? Probably, you are not aware of the business?
What the “Recruitment Team” is actually doing?
First question, if the recruitment team of your company is the final authority to “Select” or “Reject” a candidate? In most of the cases‚your answer will be NOPE, they are not the final authority. That right has been vested on “The Departmental or The Functional Head”. If those Department and Functional heads selects anyone on their own‚without informing you‚you cannot do anything.
Now the second question‚you cannot take any decision (on selection or rejection)‚you cannot even source (just getting people from recruitment consultancy firms)‚then what are you doing in the company? Are you working as mediator or coordinator between “Consultancies” and “Functional Departments”? In such scenarios‚how can you justify the very existence to this “department” in the organization? I am not against “Recruitment Department”‚my question is if they are not doing the very basic and key function of their department-”Sourcing” , then what they are doing?
As soon as they get the requirement from any department or any division they just call their (their selected, short listed or favorite) consultants and place the requirement. I have seen‚in some cases they are not even able to explain to the consultants‚the Job Description‚Job Specifications and roles for the profile that they are looking for. It is an irony.
Solution and Conclusion
It is not my verdict and it is not my decision. It is your company and it is for you to pay. But, I suggest to “Corporate Heads” and “HR-Heads”‚either use your all resources minus recruitment firms‚efficiently or outsource your total “Recruitment Process” to an external agency. This will save a lot of Administrative and Operational Cost. What do you say?
Thanks to: Sanjeev Sharma for his contribution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)